Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Before we start?

Mr. Douglas: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If you prefer me to raise it at the end of Question Time, I shall defer to your wishes, Mr. Speaker—but that will not detract from the urgency of the matter.
My point of order is that last Thursday, during business questions, several requests were made for a statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on capital offsets. No indication has been given that such a statement will be made. My constituents, and those of other right hon. and hon. Members, are being adversely affected because poinding warrants are being issued and executed in respect of bills that are not founded in law. May I have your permission, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise that matter if we reach questions today that are relevant to that subject. I believe that question No. 16 is the first of them. We must see whether we can do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Drugs

Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra resources he is making available to Strathclyde police to enable them to fight against the significant increase in drug abuse and drug-related crime; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The provision of resources for Strathclyde police is a matter for Strathclyde regional council as police authority. My right hon. and learned Friend stands ready to pay police grant on the council's net approved expenditure on the police service.

Mr. Hood: I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. Is he aware of the concern felt by thousands of parents in my constituency about the increase in drug and alcohol abuse and in related crimes there? This year, Glasgow is meant to be the city of culture, but it is becoming better known in Europe as the city of drugs. I am saddened by the Minister's response. Is he further aware of the increased use of firearms in drugs offences? Will he take on board early-day motion 771, which deals with the need for gun

control, and support Strathclyde police force in calling for stricter firearms laws and controls over those licensed to use guns?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Last year, we tightened up the law on firearms ownership—and I voted through the night for that legislation. As to the number of police officers working on the extremely serious problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers, Strathclyde drugs squad now has 34 officers in comparison with only 18 in 1979. The Glasgow drugs wing of the Scottish crime squad has 10 officers, and another will be added later this year. Uniformed and CID officers also co-operate in dealing with the problem. Strathclyde police are under establishment by 130 officers, and the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to make representations to his colleagues on the police authority, as to the need to bring that force up to strength.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Is the Minister aware that Strathclyde police officers also work in Argyll and Bute on drug-related crime, not least because of the length of the coastline there? Does he agree that they would undertake those duties more happily if they were not seriously disadvantaged in comparison with colleagues outwith that area? Eighty per cent. of police in Argyll and Bute live in tied houses. Although I agree with the provision of such accommodation, police are not permitted to buy those houses, and have been disadvantaged since the rates relief portion of their rent allowance was abolished. Will the Minister examine that anomaly?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We recognised that police officers in provided accommodation were at a disadvantage in comparison with colleagues owning their own houses, which is why we made provision in the regulations that come into effect on 1 April for an allowance of £300 per annum for officers in provided accommodation, which will continue for three years. The right to buy obviously depends on whether the property is surplus to requirements, which is a matter for consideration by the chief constable in each authority.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend encourage police forces in Strathclyde and elsewhere in Scotland to use referral schemes, so that people suffering from drug misuse, and falling within the ambit of police forces, can be referred to voluntary organisations for help with treatment—as well as being brought within the law?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are Home Office plans for the deployment of local drug prevention teams, but they are still at an early stage. We shall be monitoring developments in the first small group of local teams in England. The new central drug prevention unit, as an executive arm of the ministerial group on the misuse of drugs, will have a British role and we are conscious of the need for rehabilitation and education, on which we are spending substantial sums.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the executive members of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to discuss the current state of the fishing industry.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: My noble Friend the Minister of State and I last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 7 February, and my noble Friend did so on 8 March; in addition, my officials are in regular contact with the federation. It has not asked for a further meeting.

Mr. Campbell: Does the Secretary of State understand the deep sense of apprehension felt in the fishing community, in the fish processing sector and by all those who derive their living from the fishing industry in Scotland? Will he now undertake to consider a package of measures to alleviate that concern, and in particular give serious consideration to the introduction of a decomissioning scheme?

Mr. Rifkind: I understand that concern. I have had some extremely valuable discussions with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. I am aware of the concern that a reduction in quotas might have implications for fishermen's income. That is why we have been monitoring carefully what has been happening in the fishing industry since the beginning of the year. So far, it is encouraging that the value of fish landed in Scotland is slightly higher over the first two months of this year than the value of fish landed a year ago. There is no proof that that will continue, but it is encouraging at this stage that the increased prices will help to offset the reduced amount of fish being caught.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Why does the Secretary of State persist with his irrationally vindictive policy of driving the Scottish fleet into bankruptcy? Why does not he take into account the fact that European Community money is available and consider having a proper decommissioning scheme and a proper lay-up scheme? It is no use his saying that prices can take care of the problems when he knows that with boats being allowed to go to sea only 92 days a year, it is quite impossible for the price of fish to rise that much and still produce income without causing great hardship to the owners of vessels and to all those employed in the fishing industry in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully: the value of fish landed in Scotland this year is slightly higher than the value of fish landed last year. As we are only in the early part of the year, that will not necessarily continue, but it is important that we bear it in mind. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the decommissioning scheme was the subject of an extremely critical report by the Public Accounts Committee, and the House and the industry must take into account the critical remarks that were made about previous decommissioning schemes.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend analyse carefully the financial returns to the industry in the first part of the year? Admittedly, the returns have been good, but they relate to a very small proportion of the fleet. The rest of the fleet has not been able to go to sea on account of bad weather. Because they are restricted to 92 days, they cannot recoup the losses incurred in the early part of the year as they would in a normal year. Will my right hon. and learned Friend please understand the deep apprehension that still exists in the industry, to the extent that fishermen are now considering legal action against him? I ask him in particular to reconsider a decommissioning scheme.

Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, we shall continue carefully to monitor what is happening in the industry. I know that my right hon. Friend will be the first to agree that the financial implications of the reduced quotas must be examined. The value of the fish landed is a factor that determines fishermen's incomes and we cannot ignore the fact that it is marginally higher this year. Obviously, legal challenges are a matter for the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and ultimately, if the matter is considered by the courts we shall all respect the outcome of the judgment, if it goes that far.

Public Housing (Dampness)

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from local authorities and other organisations about the need to direct further investment to tackling dampness in public sector housing.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from local authorities and other organisations about the need to direct further investment to tackling dampness in public sector housing.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No such representations have been received. I am pleased to say that I am today announcing the final housing capital allocations to local authorities for 1990–91. The final gross allocations have been increased by £46·5 million compared with the provisional allocations that I announced last December. That will benefit all housing authorities in Scotland. Of the increase, £41·1 million is in respect of expenditure on local authorities' own stock. Full details of the final allocations have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister recall that the Scottish Development Department's own house conditions survey showed that more than 500,000 houses in Scotland were suffering from dampness, of which 370,000 were in the public sector, and that that dampness was creating major health problems, particularly for youngsters and children with chest problems such as bronchitis? As last week the Secretary of State reshuffled some £4 million to save his political skin and the skin of his party, will a substantial proportion of the allocation that he has announced be spent specifically on the eradication of dampness?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I visited 39 district councils, none of which pressed me to make specific allocations because they want the discretion to choose their own priorities. What the hon. Lady says about the seriousness of dampness is true. Moray district council has today been given an extra allocation of £676,000, and on the non-housing revenue account an extra allocation of £50,000. Every authority in Scotland will benefit from the extra allocation of £41·1 million to the housing revenue account, except West Lothian, which has been allocated everything that it asked for. It also benefits on the non-HRA.

Mr. Welsh: Given that over 520,000 houses in Scotland suffer from dampness, which affects the lives and health of many Scottish people, the amount of money that has been allocated is inadequate to meet the problem. Even to recycle money within the Scottish Office budget, Ministers must go cap in hand to the Secretary of State, who must


go cap in hand to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister dominates the Scottish Office, she should be answerable, because Ministers certainly are not. When will we get action to solve major health and housing problems, which are nothing less than a national disgrace?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The extra allocation of £46·5 million is being made not as a result of recycling within the Scottish Office but on the basic assumption that it is possible to process council house sales within seven and a half months. Some authorities in Scotland have taken well over a year to do that, but we know that, in two years, processing has been completed within less than eight months. Last Sunday, the Sunday Mail said:
It's not a shortage of cash that's causing chaos, but massive delays by some district councils' house selling operations.

Mr. McAllion: The Government have created a national housing agency, Scottish Homes, which owns more than 70,000 houses in the public sector. How can it possibly tackle dampness when, according to its strategic investment plan, investment in those 70,000 houses has been placed at the bottom of six different spending priorities? Is not that an obscene order of priorities and does not it represent a sell-out of Scottish Homes' tenants and Scottish Homes' stock?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Special Housing Association and Scottish Homes have a good reputation among their tenants for spending sufficient funds on management and maintenance of council house stock. Most of their houses are in relatively good condition. It is for them to choose their priorities, and obviously they will do so. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular problems in his constituency, I should be glad if he drew them to the attention of Scottish Homes and myself.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that 74 per cent. of houses that suffer from dampness are in the public sector is a condemnation of the policies of Scottish local housing authorities?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is important that housing authorities have the discretion to choose priorities within their areas. These problems are found not only in the public sector but in the private sector, and today we have made an additional allocation to the non-HRA as well.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware how blindly complacent he sounds when he speaks on the subject of dampness? Does not he understand the enormous human misery caused to thousands of Scots through their having to live in damp houses? Does he accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that dampness in housing causes ill health? If he does, will he stop mouthing meaningless statistics that no one in Scotland believes and invest the massive amount of money necessary to eradicate that unacceptable and unnecessary scourge for ever?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that £46·5 million is to be sniffed at. His authority in Glasgow has today been allocated more than £9 million extra on the housing revenue account and £2 million on the non-HRA. He should address his comments

to his district council which, no doubt, will take them seriously. The average increase throughout Scotland is 9·8 per cent., and that should not be underestimated.

Community Care

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra provision he has planned for the community care of mentally ill citizens and those people who are mentally handicapped in 1990–91.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Government support to local authorities in 1990–91 through revenue support grant will take account of likely additional costs arising from the introduction of the new community care arrangements, including services to those with a mental illness or a mental handicap.

Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that one important aspect of community care is the provision of sheltered employment? Is not one of the finest examples of that the sheltered placement scheme, which provides some 350 permanent jobs for those with mental handicaps? As there are about 14,000 mentally handicapped people in Strathclyde region alone, will the Government give an assurance that they will increase their share of that scheme's budget, as Strathclyde regional council has done? When will the Government provide proper community care for those with mental handicap and illness?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the success of the sheltered placement scheme, which has received strong Government support. Our commitment to the needs of those with mental illness or handicap is reflected in the fact that the social work budget has planned provision increasing over 11 years by 75 per cent. in real terms. That is a substantial increase.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference between Labour and Conservative health care policies is the difference between talk and action? The Labour party talks whereas the Conservative party has spent more than three times as much on health care in Scotland over the past 10 years.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. It is not insignificant that the title of our White Paper was "Caring for People". The interests of those in especially vulnerable groups have been brought to the forefront in the provision for community care.

Mr. Worthington: When will the Minister bring together the social work services group and the Scottish Home and Health Department to achieve proper planning and co-ordinated policies for Scotland? One of the advantages of the Scottish Office is supposed to be a corporate approach, but it does not exist. There are twice as many mentally ill people and one and a half times as many mentally handicapped people in hospital in Scotland as there are in England and Wales. When will the Minister and the Scottish Office show some leadership in this matter?

Mr. Lang: The figures show a dramatic improvement in our provision compared with that of the previous Labour Government. Residential places for the mentally ill have increased by 88 per cent. since we took office; there has been a 73 per cent. increase for the mentally handicapped; and the community health services budget generally is up


by 57 per cent. in real terms over the decade. That is a dramatic increase. We have found the resources to follow up our care in this important area.

Water Authorities (Debts)

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Her Majesty's Government intend to write off any of the current outstanding debts of Scottish water authorities.

Mr. Rifkind: Debt was written off in connection with water privatisation in England and Wales. As we have no proposals to privatise the Scottish water authorities, the issue does not arise.

Sir David Steel: The Secretary of State might say that the issue does not arise, but, as the Treasury gave £5 billion to the water authorities in England and Wales in this financial year, does not that mean that nothing equivalent has been given to Scottish authorities, with the result that every poll tax payer is paying a higher element of community charge than would otherwise be the case? Should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman have another of his cosy chats with the Prime Minister and point out the injustice of that as well?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically misinformed. First, he is unaware that expenditure on water and sewerage in Scotland will be more than £500 million over the next three years—a major increase which we announced recently. Secondly, he is unaware that Scottish water consumers actually pay significantly less than consumers south of the border. The average cost per Scottish water consumer is £40·62 compared with an English average of £55·12. For metered water users, there is a similar difference of which he should have been aware.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I acknowledge the extra money for investment that my right hon. and learned Friend has allocated for water and sewerage, but will he also recognise the problem facing regional councils such as Grampian? In recent years, Grampian has had to invest large sums in water and sewerage services because of the service that the council gives to the development of North sea oil. As a result, traditional industries in Grampian such as fish processing, food processing in general and the paper industry must bear charges out of all proportion to those of similar industries elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rifkind: I am very familiar with the point that my right hon. Friend has raised. He will be aware that water charges in Grampian are much the same as those in England. In addition, Grampian regional council, which has received advice from the Scottish Office about the council's discretion to vary water costs for certain classess of its consumers, has—if I am not mistaken—reduced some of its water charges this year as a result of that discretion.

Mr. Harry Ewing: When the Secretary of State says that he has no plans to privatise the water industry in Scotland, is he aware of the speech made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), to what he described as the new Right in Scotland, in which he said that the Conservative party had not yet run out of things to privatise in Scotland? Will the

Secretary of State give us an absolute assurance that water is not included in the speech made by his hon. Friend, or is he still afraid of him?

Mr. Rifkind: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that we have not run out of things to privatise in Scotland, and water is not one of them.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish fishing industry since the announcement on 8 March of measures to restrict fishing activity.

Mr. Lang: My noble Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry on the day of the announcement.

Mr. Wallace: I am sure that, from his contacts with fishermen and the fishing industry, the Minister will know that one of the great weaknesses in the present conservation regime is the number of fish that are discarded into the sea. Does he agree that the measures announced on 8 March will do nothing to stop that fault in the regime? The problem will not be tackled properly until the Government are prepared to come forward with measures that bring the catching capacity of the fleet into line with fishing opportunities. Is it not the case that any efforts on the part of the Scottish Office to do that are being frustrated by its English counterparts?

Mr. Lang: No, that is not the case. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that conservation is vital, which is also recognised by our colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as well as by the Scottish Office. With regard to the announcement about haddock, there was an option to move to nets with a wider mesh of 110 mm, but the vast majority of fishermen opted instead for the more restricted number of days' fishing.

Dr. Godman: The restriction of fishing activities off the west coast of Scotland must have as its aim the protection of the west coast fishermen, who fear—rightly and understandably—an incursion into their traditional fishing grounds by the bigger vessels from elsewhere in Scotland. With regard to discards, mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), what consultation have the Government been involved in on the harsh measures threatened by the Norwegian Government and the banning of discards on catches in their waters? That ban will affect some north-east Scottish fishermen.

Mr. Lang: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the interests of west coast fishermen. We are looking closely at that point with a view to bringing forward a consultation paper at an early date, which may, for example, canvass the possibility of a weekend ban on fishing in west coast inshore waters.

School Assemblies

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any legislative proposals relating to the conduct of school assemblies; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: All education authority schools in Scotland are required by law to practise religious observance. My


right hon. and learned Friend intends to issue shortly draft guidance on how this and other aspects of religious education might be strengthened.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that all pupils should have a sound knowledge of the Christian religion and that that can be substantially achieved through well-conducted school assemblies? Does he think that those assemblies would be enriched by the regular singing of "I vow to thee my country", meaning Great Britain of course? Perhaps the singing of that great hymn would enrich our prayers in the House.

Mr. Lang: Yes, or perhaps the singing of "Lead kindly light amid the encircling gloom." It is certainly our intention in bringing forward the consultation paper to find ways of strengthening religious observance and religious education in schools. That is part of our purpose.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Minister agree that the Scots do not require advice on religious education or practices in schools or anywhere else, and certainly not from sources in England where the average attendance in church on Sundays is less than 2 per cent? Does he further agree that perhaps school assemblies could join in observing the Church of Scotland's day of prayer against the poll tax? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), could advise the education authorities and the school chaplains to do just that.

Mr. Lang: I am only a Minister of the Crown and I cannot aspire to those greater insights to which ministers of the Kirk aspire. There is a need for improved religious observance in schools, and the characteristics of that should be more frequent. It should be more regular and of high quality.

Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Ayrshire and Arran health board; and what was discussed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I regularly meet health board chairmen to discuss a variety of topics.

Mr. McKelvey: No doubt when the hon. Gentleman met the health board chairman in Ayrshire he discussed the question of opting out. I wish that I had been a fly on the wall at the time. Is the Minister aware that in the Glasgow Herald of 19 March, Bill Fyfe, the chairman of the health board, made it clear that in his opinion only doctors could decide the question of hospitals opting out, that it could not be decided otherwise, and that opting-out cannot be rammed down their threats? Will the Minister therefore refrain from ramming the idea of opting-out down the throats of doctors and consultants in Ayrshire and elsewhere? Will he give an undertaking to abandon opting-out since little interest in it has been shown by doctors, or will he at least allow opting-out only where a majority of those working in hospitals have agreed to accept it?

Mr. Forsyth: I am very much aware that Mr. Bill Fyfe, the chairman of the health board, rejected the view expressed by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), in his role as paid columnist for the Glasgow

Herald, to the effect that the proposals that are being discussed in Ayrshire and Arran for self-governing status for that hospital were in in no way linked to any possibility of development of phase two of that hospital. Whether a proposal comes forward will depend entirely on the discussions that are taking place and on whether the consultants believe that it is in the interests of patient care.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the Minister take time to visit the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board? He will know from correspondence that he has received from me that some patients in Springburn are not shown on the records of the Greater Glasgow health board as being with their doctors. As a result, some patients who have been with their doctors since 1935 are not recorded as being on their GP's list. That means that the general practitioner is not being paid for those patients. It is ridiculous that Greater Glasgow health board does not have proper records.

Mr. Forsyth: I take that as support by the hon. Gentleman for the proposals by Greater Glasgow health board to privatise its medical records in order to improve the service.

Mr. Dewar: Can the Minister answer the simple question that was put to him initially and say when he met the chairman of the Ayrshire and Arran health board? Does he recall that the working paper on self-governing hospitals that was produced by his Department stated:
It will be for boards to give all proposals … local publicity. They will seek the views of those with an interest," including
staff affected, general practitioners, local health councils and the local community"?
Has that working paper become waste paper? Or, if the Minister still believes in an element of democratic consent, how will the promise to consult the staff of hospitals that may opt out be implemented?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman seems somewhat confused. If he has read that working paper he will know the process whereby hospitals become NHS trusts. The first stage is an expression of interest; the hospital in Ayr has not even reached that stage yet. The second stage is that, if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate that the expression of interest should be followed up, a plan will be prepared. At that stage there will be full consultation, not only with the doctors but with the wider community, as spelt out in the document to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Investment

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much inward investment has taken place in Scotland over the last five years; and what steps he is taking to encourage further such investment.

Mr. Lang: Over the five years to the end of March 1989, Locate in Scotland recorded planned investment by companies of about £2·4 billion, associated with the intended creation or safeguarding of more than 40,000 jobs. Locate in Scotland is continuing to promote Scotland vigorously as a location for inward investment, and I have recently increased its staffing.

Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since 1981, a total of 60,000 jobs have been attracted to Scotland as a


result of the Government's policies, and that they almost certainly would not have been attracted in those numbers had a Labour Government been in power, because the Opposition are anti-business? Does he also agree that the Government's inward investment programme is being maintained, as is evidenced by the 2,000 jobs that have just been attracted to Scotland as a result of Motorola coming there? Will my hon. Friend kindly leave some jobs for the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lang: I would not argue with my hon. Friend about the exact number of jobs that have been created, but certainly a number of indirect jobs follow from the direct jobs that have been created, and they are substantial in number. Over the past five years about 300 projects have been attracted to Scotland, which is an average of one a week every week for five years. That is a dramatic advertisement of the qualities that Scotland has to offer.

Mr. Ernie Ross: If the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), who has joined us, is looking for a safe seat in Scotland, following the resignation of his Tory councillors, he is wasting his time.
Perhaps the Minister will ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State a question. In "The Thatcher Interview", talking about the effect that high business rates are having on the closure rate of business in Scotland, the Prime Minister said that closures might be the result of bad management or too much borrowing. Does the Secretary of State fall into line with her judgment on this issue?

Mr. Lang: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should raise the subject of business rates, because the Labour party has been responsible for substantially increased business rates in Scotland over the years, to the great detriment of business. The Government have stepped in with new resources and a progressive plan to reduce business rates in Scotland steadily over a five or six-year period to bring them into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing could do more harm to Scotland's prospects for inward investment than a combination of the roof tax and the setting up of a Scottish assembly as the only European haven of socialism apart from Albania—a comparison which is perhaps unfair to Albania?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reason why we have been so successful in attracting inward investment to Scotland is that we have established an enterprise economy there based on low taxation rates. The high taxes that would result from a Labour Government would drive investment away not only from Scotland but from the whole United Kingdom.

Mr. Beggs: I congratulate the Minister on the success in attracting new industry to Scotland—

Mr. Sillars: But—

Mr. Beggs: But does he agree that Dumfries and Galloway, Stranraer and Cairnryan are as peripheral to the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland is? Is there likely to be inward investment in that region of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know of my enthusiasm to attract inward investment to Dumfries and Galloway. As for infrastructure, we have substantially increased investment in the A75—about £50 million has

been spent on it in the past decade, and more is to follow. That is of advantage not only to my constituents but to the hon. Gentleman's in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend believe that the European Community may soon find that the special measures given to Scotland, over and above those given to England, are going to an area which is no longer one of low income and low economic growth, and that it will not allow them in a free-trade Europe?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend may be assured that the selective assistance that operates in Scotland is part of the United Kingdom scheme which is applied on even-handed criteria and meets the rules and regulations of the European Commission.

Police (Court Work)

Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the report made to him by the chief constable of Central Scotland police about the amount of police time spent in courts.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Efforts will continue to be made, in consultation with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, to reduce the amount of police time spent in court, so far as that is consistent with the administration of justice.

Mr. Ewing: I do not know what efforts continue to be made because it is now two years since I came to see the Minister about the absolutely disgraceful situation, particularly in the sheriff courts in Scotland, and nothing but nothing has happened. If anything, it is worse than it was two years ago. Is the Minister aware that the situation in the sheriff courts is nothing short of a national scandal? If anybody should be charged with wasting police time, it is the Scottish Courts Administration and the Minister.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Over the past 18 months the average delay period for summary criminal trials has been reduced from 17·6 to 14·9 weeks. The hon. Gentleman has correctly identified a pressing problem which we have been looking at hard. The main problem is caused by late changes of plea, and no solution has emerged which protects the interests of justice. If someone were required to plead guilty or not guilty 48 hours earlier, many accused would plead not guilty, causing even longer delays, because they wait to see how many witnesses appear in court to see what chances they have of getting off. I am sorry that that should be so. The hon. Member, who once had responsibility for the problem, has identified it correctly. The joint report of the chief police officers and the Crown Office made several important recommendations on the quality and timeliness of police reports and statements, the availability and citation of witnesses and the use of procedures to reduce inconvenience. Some findings may well be put into effect by the summer. I shall keep in close touch with the Lord Advocate on this point.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Although I welcome the reduction in time that it takes for cases to come to trial, may I enjoin my hon. Friend to reconsider the perfectly simple scheme which I devised for both sheriff courts and High Courts, under which there would be a mandatory meeting of both parties to arrange pleas in time to dismiss the witnesses? It is not only policemen who spend a


ludicrous part of their working time hanging round the courts, but witnesses who are reluctant to co-operate in the prosecution of crime.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will certainly discuss my hon. and learned Friend's point with the Lord Advocate as soon as possible and draw those comments to his attention.

Employment Strategy

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss employment strategy in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: I met the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 10 November 1989 for a general discussion on the Scottish economy. There are no plans for further meetings at present.

Mr. Clarke: Does the Secretary of State intend to raise with the STUC and British Steel the crucial importance of investment at Clydesdale and Imperial mills? Will he discuss with them the recent gossip, rumours and speculation about foreign deals? Will he tell the House whether he considers the Scottish capacity for producing seamless tubes to be important, especially for the North sea?

Mr. Rifkind: When I last met the STUC we discussed those matters and agreed that it would be highly desirable if British Steel could be persuaded to consider further investment in the steel industry in Scotland. That industry has different components, including the category to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Scottish Office intends to ensure that its views on the future plate mill strategy for Scotland are taken into account by British Steel when it comes to develop its future strategy. At the end of the day these are matters for British Steel, but it is important that it should be aware of the good case that exists for investment in Scotland.

Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State is only too well aware of the thousands of livelihoods in Scotland that depend on the steel industry. How can it possibly be right for Ministers to abdicate responsibility for all those people and simply to hand over the final decision for this vital industry to the board of directors of British Steel plc?

Mr. Rifkind: The employment opportunities that exist because of the steel industry are important, as are the employment opportunities presented by Yarrow, Ferranti, IBM or any large employer in Scotland. The Government do not directly provide employment. Their responsibility is obviously to encourage an atmosphere and a quality in the economy that encourage job creation. The hon. Gentleman will join me in feeling great pleasure because unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 150,000 over the past two or three years.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the STUC, will he inquire whether it has changed its policy of opposing job-creating investment, such as that which was to take place at Ford of Dundee, and whether it is still its policy to support Scotland as a museum of industrial archaeology by public sector

subsidies rather than supporting the Government's policy to attract private sector investment from abroad, thereby securing the jobs of the Scottish people indefinitely?

Mr. Rifkind: I am glad to say that, unlike the Labour party, the STUC supports the Government's Scottish Enterprise proposals and the way in which training is to be developed to local enterprise companies throughout Scotland. We welcome that support. It is a pity that, so far, the Labour party has felt unable to support us.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, given the serious employment problems in Scotland, it is far too long—four months—since he last met the STUC? Is he aware that the serious position in Midlothian is causing great concern? Recently, Sneddons went into receivership, with the loss of 200 or 300 jobs? Crystal Glass has threatened to close. The coal mining and engineering industries have contracted. I am worried about employment prospects in Midlothian. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider giving Midlothian special regional status to tackle the employment problem?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to the various closures in his constituency, but I think that he would wish to point out fairly that many more jobs have been created in Midlothian over the past few months and years than have been lost.

Mr. Eadie: No.

Mr. Rifkind: If that had not happened, it would have been impossible for me to say, as I can, that unemployment has fallen greatly in Midlothian over the past two or three years.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the STUC leaders that there are more people in work in Scotland than ever before, but that that is no thanks to certain trade union leaders who put the interests of their members at Dagenham above those of the jobless in Dundee?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to say that the number of people in employment in Scotland is at its highest ever recorded level.

Mr. Dewar: A month ago at Scottish questions, when replying to me, the right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed that it was important that British Steel was aware of the Scottish Office view that there was a strong case for investing in the Scottish steel industry. Despite the statements of Conservative Back Benchers, that has nothing to do with industrial archaeology. What steps have been taken to get this message across? Have there been meetings at a senior level with British Steel and involving Ministers? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is essential that he personally takes up the cudgels on behalf of the Scottish steel industry?

Mr. Rifkind: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await my answer to the next question on the Order Paper, which deals with that very matter.

British Steel

Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairman or chief executive of British Steel.

Mr. Rifkind: I expect to see the chairman of British Steel in the relatively near future.

Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a different dimension in relationships between the Scottish Office and IBM and the Scottish Office and British Steel, because he deliberately privatised British Steel? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets British Steel senior executives, will he discuss the fact that there are lying at Leith docks mile upon mile of welded pipe which will be used to extract Scottish oil from the Scottish waters of the North sea, and not a single mile of it has been produced in Scottish steel mills?
When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman press British Steel to accept—and will he accept unequivocally—the call by shop stewards at Dalziel today that the welded steel mill that British Steel is earmarking for Teesside should go to Dalziel in Lanarkshire, which would increase its take from Ravenscraig and ensure that Scottish steel jobs are created from the massively expanding demand for steel products in the Scottish waters of the North sea?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there are imports of steel into the United Kingdom in categories that are simply not manufactured in this country, in Scotland or elsewhere. It is obviously a matter for British Steel to decide whether that makes sense or whether it should start manufacturing in the United Kingdom steel that it currently imports. That is a matter for British Steel to decide and, naturally, we hope that if it comes to that judgment, it will choose a Scottish location for the manufacture of products of that kind.

Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that the shutdown at Ravenscraig, however unwelcome, is being handled with the customary responsibility and competence of the managers and steel workers there so as not to prejudice the long-term future of the plant? Will he make sure that the chairman of British Steel fully understands the implications of the plate review for the future of Dalziel and Ravenscraig up to and beyond 1994?

Mr. Rifkind: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the responsible attitude of shop stewards and work force at Ravenscraig, and I agree with him that it is important for all in Scotland who attach importance to these matters to ensure that British Steel is aware of the attractions of Scotland as a location for investment, either at Dalziel or in respect of its other steel activities north of the border.

Mr. Holt: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there would be considerable resentment on Teesside if he were to use, or seek to use, undue influence on British Steel? The people of England are just as entitled to produce steel—on Teesside—as the Scots are; let the board of management make that decision. I am sorry that there are no socialists from Teesside here today to fight for jobs on Teesside, as I am doing, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend has got the message.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The decision must be based on the good commercial case that can be put in regard to where investment should go. All parts of the United Kingdom would welcome steel investment, and it is the responsibility of us who live in Scotland to put such arguments as point towards

investment in Scotland. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be making similar representations on behalf of his constituency and his part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dewar: I am genuinely grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me again. I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is soon to meet the chairman of British Steel. May I press on him the urgency of doing that in a short time scale, given the imminence of decisions that may affect the Scottish industry? Will he bear very much in mind the fact that British Steel is not just another private sector company but that it has a wider responsibility, given its history and the vulnerability and importance of the industry in Scotland? Its special status is reflected by the existence of the golden share.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the golden share applies only in regard to any attempt by any outside interest to acquire more than 15 per cent. of the shares in British Steel, and I am not aware of any suggestion that that is about to happen or is likely to happen.
As for the overall responsibilities of British Steel, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the assurance that was given at the time of privatisation, and which has since been repeated—that if at any time British Steel did not wish to continue with its assets at Ravenscraig, it would consider any private sector bid for those assets to ensure the continuation of steel activity north of the border. That is a matter to which I attach importance and to which the Prime Minister referred when questioned about it at this Dispatch Box.

Council House Sales

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland since May 1979.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Since April 1979, over 184,500 public sector houses in Scotland have been sold to sitting tenants. Included in that figure are over 132,000 sales by local authorities.

Mr. Knox: What percentage of the council house stock in Scotland has been sold to sitting tenants? If the figure is still significantly below that in England, what further steps does my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State intend to take to increase the number of sales in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The figure is now 18·6 per cent., and south of the border it is 22·2 per cent. The gap has narrowed. On the previous occasion that I reported to my hon. Friend, it had narrowed by 0·1 per cent., and it has closed by at least as much again. We have taken steps, by way of a right-to-buy publicity campaign, to ensure that tenants know of changes in the law. It should not be forgotten that the average rent in Scotland is approximately £20 and the average weekly cost of a mortgage is approximately £23. That is within the reach of thousands of families throughout Scotland.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister appreciate that, notwithstanding the discounts on these council houses, many people in Scotland who bought their houses are now in arrears with building societies because they cannot afford the high interest rates? Does he appreciate that the


Government's policy of cutting public support for council housing, and thus forcing rents up, led many people to buy houses when they would probably have been better advised not to do so? When will the Government reconsider their whole approach to this issue? When will they start to provide decent support for public sector housing? When will they allow local authorities to avoid increasing rents excessively and start building some of the council houses that are needed?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously, in the case of the public sector housing stock, the level of rents is determined by what is considered to be an appropriate level of management and maintenance. Public sector sales—sales to sitting tenants—greatly benefit the remainder of the public sector housing stock. Fewer than 0·1 per cent. of houses sold to tenants are being repossessed. The overall number is very small. Also, building societies are prepared to discuss with those concerned suitable phasing arrangements to enable debts to be paid.

Mrs. Gorman: Can my hon. Friend tell me what progress is being made in respect of the rents-into-mortgages schemes in Scotland? This is a terrific idea, which I hope can be extrapolated to the new town corporation houses in my area. Changing a rent into a mortgage is a very simple idea.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was present when the Prime Minister handed over the first deed of contract to a remedial teacher in Uphall, who was gaining her own house under this scheme. There have been more than 500 expressions of interest, and we expect the scheme to be highly successful. Of course, we shall review the success of the operation shortly.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many extra staff have been employed by local authorities for the administration of the poll tax system.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Local authority staffing levels are the responsibility of individual authorities. Information on numbers of staff employed for particular duties is not held centrally.

Mr. Home Robertson: I find it remarkable that, on this question, the Secretary of State is not facing the music. The poll tax is surely one job-creation scheme that Scotland could have done without. Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain how his right hon. and learned Friend's £4 million poll tax panic package will be distributed, and where the money will come from? Can he explain why his right hon. and learned Friend failed to protest in Cabinet last Tuesday; why he required us, on Tuesday and Wednesday, to explain that such blatant discrimination against Scotland was an outrage; and why his right hon. and learned Friend was looking like a right idiot on Thursday? What kind of humiliation will it take to make the Secretary of State resign?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend will make a statement to the House on the details of the scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Shortly. The Budget is, of course, secret until it has been delivered. The meeting to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not

a discussion session, but a relatively formal meeting. The matter has been taken up by my right hon. and learned Friend. As to the source of the funds, suggestions that the sum of £4 million will be taken from sensitive Scots programmes are incorrect. The sums involved are marginal in the context of the total resources of £9·5 billion. It is part of the normal good housekeeping practised by all Ministers within overall programmes to adjust resources in response to changed evidence of need. The £4 million for this purpose will be found as part of the normal process of good housekeeping, and not by deliberate cuts in any programme.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that, despite the increase in numbers employed, we have rightly had exemptions for Alzheimer's disease, transitional payments and now capital offsets? All those impinge on what Scots should have been paying since April 1989. Therefore, will the Minister instruct local authorities not to pursue poindings and warrant sales against costs that manifestly cannot be substantiated in law? Does he accept that it is not a matter just for the Budget but for the status of the Scottish Office, and that there is a clear indication that Scottish Office officials were not consulted and did not know what was happening in England and Wales?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will not give any such guidance to local authorities. It is for them to choose the most appropriate measures to raise the revenue due to them from such persons as the hon. Gentleman. I will not give them any advice on that. Further exemptions, would breach the principle of accountability which underlies the whole concept of the community charge.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that on average about 90 per cent. of community charge payers are paying the community charge? Will he take time today to write to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is a lawyer, to ask him why he refuses to condemn those of his hon. Friends who wish to break the law?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We look forward to the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and other Labour Front-Bench Members on their colleagues who are refusing to pay, which we believe to be wholly irresponsible because defying the law is a short-term policy which is unworthy of any hon. Members who espouse to be a future Government. I can indeed confirm what my hon. Friend said; on average 90 per cent. have paid the community charge in Scotland. I expect that figure to increase in coming months.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister clear up the big remaining mystery of last week? Did he threaten to resign, and was that what really pulled the Prime Minister back into step? Is the Minister aware of the statistics that have come out about the change in the number of poll tax registrations in Scotland? Before the whole thing began, the official Government estimate was 800,000 registration changes in Scotland in the first year. The actual number has been 1·5 million, every single one of them generating bureaucracy, expense and confusion. Will local authorities be compensated for the wrongness of the Government's official estimate? Will the Minister assure the House that, whatever else the £4 million comes from, it will not come from local authority budgets within the Scottish Office?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is ironical that the hon. Gentleman should express such concern about registration since he strongly opposed registration in the "Stop it" campaign. Those who have registered amount to

99 per cent. I believe that the system is working well. As to the hon. Gentleman's question about whether I or any of my colleagues threatened to resign, the answer is emphatically no.

Points of Order

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am rising to ask whether you have received any notification from the Government as to whether they intend to make a statement today about the seizure of nuclear trigger devices at Heathrow airport. I am sure that everyone in the House, on both sides, will agree that this is a profoundly important matter, relating not only to national security but to the United Kingdom's relationship with the Government of Iraq. It is something on which it is necessary for the House to hear from the Government very urgently. I should be obliged if the Leader of the House, who is here, could arrange for a statement to be made later today.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is indeed a very serious matter. I am sure that what he has said will have been heard by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I invite you to make a statement on the following circumstances? Under Standing Order No. 128, a Select Committee governs the operation and compilation of the Register of Members' Interests. On the Order Paper today, there are 32 parliamentary questions tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). I have given the hon. Gentleman notice that I would raise the point of order. On the last occasion that similar questions were tabled, at a cost of well over £3,000 to the taxpayers, the hon. Member admitted that it had nothing to do with his constituency but that he had tabled the questions on behalf of Price Waterhouse who wanted the information to form a business plan.
This is an abuse of the House. May I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to deprecate the practice until the Select Committee on Members' Interests has had an opportunity to examine the matter? I recognise that it is the responsible Select Committee. I had hoped, in the past when I raised this matter, that the publicity would lead to an end of the abuse, but that has not been the case. It would be helpful if you could say whether you prefer that sort of questioning about outside interests when an hon. Member receives several thousand pounds a year in his private income. The questions should not be asked in order to reflect that interest.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right to say that that is a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests, and I understand that that Committee is already looking into that practice.

Mr. Gavin Strang: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that it did not escape your notice that, at the start of Scottish Questions, there was only one Conservative Back Bencher in attendance. In the course of the hour, two other Scottish Back-Bench Conservative Members came into the Chamber, one of whom did not manage to remain until the end of Question Time. Will you convey to them that they have a constitutional responsibility to be here to question the Secretary of State for Scotland and they are not absolved from that by encouraging large numbers of English Members to communicate their wishes?

Mr. Speaker: I like to see the Chamber full for Question Time, but hon. Members' other engagements are not a matter for me.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you observed the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) arriving late during Scottish Questions, asking her question and swanning out again? Would you consider that that is a good way to get a question called?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Lady had a question on the Order Paper today.

Mrs. Fyfe: So did I.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I know but I do not know why the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) arrived late or may have left early.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Mr. Speaker. In the past, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) used to do exactly the same with agriculture questions, and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has a research assistant who has been approaching all lady Members on the treatise that she is doing on the representation of women in Washington and in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the House has weightier matters to discuss this afternoon.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Local Authority Playing Fields

Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove from local authorities the power to dispose of land used as playing fields, except in circumstances where ownership is passed on for continued use as playing fields to a recreational association of charitable status under the terms of the Recreational Charities Act 1958.
We have all heard of the man who said, "Whenever I feel like taking violent exercise I go to bed and stay there until I feel better." However, there is no doubt that a healthy body aids the mind to be healthy too. Therefore, I think that people who practise sports or keep themselves fit have a healthy mind and a healthy body to boot.
There are two dangers in sport at the moment. First, some local education authorities have for a long time discouraged competitive sport. I number among them the Inner London education authority which, during the past 10 years, has largely discouraged competitive games within school sport. That authority has now changed its position completely after conducting a thorough and careful investigation, and it is now in favour of competitive sports in schools.
Another example of the disastrous discouragement of competitive games is the headmistress in Bristol who banned an egg and spoon race on school sports day because she thought that it would encourage undue competitiveness in children. Nothing could be more absurd. That type of attitude has damaged sport in schools no end. Eight out of ten children in schools today will not keep up a sport after leaving school; therefore, sport in schools needs every possible encouragement. In addition, with our test team poised on the brink of a possible great victory in the West Indies at this moment, we can see the sheer pleasure for the nation of producing successful international teams. We hope that our soccer team, too, will be successful this evening.
The second danger to sport is the selling of playing fields for building. When playing fields are sold, an amenity is lost which may never be replaced, and the environment is permanently damaged. Competitive sport in schools is regaining popularity, thanks in part to the widespread support of many hon. Members, including the sponsors of the Bill—among them my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), to whom I express my great appreciation. But we still have some way to go because playing fields are continuing to disappear for building.
It is said that an area the size of the Isle of Wight is lost every year. That is a huge acreage to lose, bearing in mind the fact that the National Playing Fields Association says that we should have six acres per thousand of the population. Just to achieve that statistic, which is small enough, we should need an extra 6,304 acres of playing fields in the south-east, an extra 2,793 acres in London, an extra 791 acres on Merseyside and an extra 974 acres in the west midlands.
Anyone who seeks to oppose the Bill will have to examine his or her conscience and realise that to do so will be to deny opportunities for sport to our children and to adult members of the community. That is the responsibility the House faces.
In an Adjournment debate on 12 February, the hon. Member for Vauxhall raised a number of these issues in a remarkable speech and kindly allowed me to refer to sports facilities in my constituency. I shall mention those within the broad national context, because the Bill is concerned with playing fields right across the land. In my constituency, Ealing council is seeking to dispose of 17 acres of playing fields at Cayton road for building development. They are in a heavily built-up area with no other leisure facilities for children or the community, and they are absolutely vital to the community.
I understand that the borough is seeking to acquire the substantial playing fields and facilities at the Warren Farm sports complex, but it must be understood that that facility will not serve the neighbourhood of Cayton road. It is too far away and there are no public transport facilities. Moreover, the schools that use the Cayton road playing fields do not want to transfer to Warren Farm and nor do the public. The two sites are not interchangeable.
The loss of local facilities will be particularly hard on the young who require not only somewhere close to home where they can play and practise informally but somewhere to spend a few minutes with their friends playing a game. Most hon. Members have had the pleasure of doing that. The Cayton road playing fields must remain playing fields, and my Bill will secure their future.
Educational and community playing fields acquired through the public purse require further protection, given that they are disappearing at the rate that I have described. The Government are due to produce a much-needed consultative planning guidance note on planning for sport. They have also recently published a consultative paper proposing changes to deemed consent planning procedures whereby local authorities can grant themselves planning permission for more profitable forms of development in advance of the sale of playing fields.
Do these steps go far enough? I believe not. I propose that local authorities be prevented from disposing of playing fields. Some may consider that an excessive and inflexible requirement, but there is a duty on all of us to look beyond the 20th century and the early 21st century. Land lost for building or for any other purpose is lost for ever, and that should be on the conscience of anyone who opposes the Bill. Future generations will not thank us if we take the short-term view and allow the sporting endowment of a century to be frittered away.
The only way of safeguarding land for public recreation and sport is to establish charitable trusts for a particular area under the Recreational Charities Act 1958. If a local authority wants to dispose of playing fields, it should be allowed to do so only in circumstances in which their use as outdoor playing space is legally assured. Provision should be made for such land to be disposed of to appropriately constituted recreational charities—and not for either private or public building, ever. The land can then continue to be used as playing fields, and will become subject to the charities Act and to the oversight and control of the Charity Commissioners. The Bill will enable people with an interest in the sports facilities in their neighbourhood to take the initiative and to exercise self-help.
In the longer term, my Bill will establish a partnership with local government in introducing expertise and new potential sources of financial support. It will also increase the likelihood of reductions in public expenditure, so that money can be beneficially released for the development of


other recreational and community initiatives. The Bill is not mandatory. Its purpose is to protect the recreational or playing fields land bank that is our heritage in such a way that local authorities can, if they choose, transfer the ownership of such land at reasonable cost to responsible bodies within their own communities. The public interest and public benefit of any such transfer will be guaranteed by the limited scope of disposal to recreational charities only.
This nation has a particular duty to our children, and to those who are no longer children but who enjoy sport, to ensure that facilities are available to learn sports, and to enhance public enjoyment of them, at all levels and ages, by those of every creed.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I do not take second place to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) in my zeal to ensure that the existing playing field stock is not only sustained but substantially expanded. I myself was a schoolboy sports enthusiast, and I remain an ardent supporter of sport in general.
I oppose the Bill because, although the hon. Member for Ealing, North raises a point of general principle that no right hon. or hon. Member would oppose, he could not resist the temptation to let fly and seriously to attack the Labour-controlled London borough of Ealing, despite the difficulties that confronts it at this time. It is well known in the locality that the hon. Member has been involved in a running battle with Ealing borough council for a considerable time.
The school playing fields to which the hon. Gentleman referred are connected with Ealing Green boys' school in my constituency, with which I have had a great deal to do over many years. With my encouragement, groups of boys from that school come to see debates and 10 o'clock Divisions in this House. From time to time, I visit the school to explain the workings of the House—although occasionally, I find that difficult to do. Never in all those years have I heard any complaint from the school or its headmaster about the local authority's plans for the playing fields of which the hon. Member for Ealing, North spoke.
I wish to put on record the practical difficulties faced by the London borough of Ealing and its plans to allow the Notting Hill housing association to develop 10 of the 17 acres of the Cayton road playing fields for social housing. The rest of the site, which is currently underused grassland, will be developed into a public park. The site is currently used as a sports ground by Ealing Green high school and is some distance from the school. It is not open to the public and has no ecological merit. The council proposes to relocate the school's playing fields if a suitable alternative site can be found, and there is a strong chance of that.
No relocation proposals will be considered without extensive consultation and the school can expect to remain at Cayton road for some time. There was extensive consultation on the proposals last year, including a public meeting organised by the planning and economic development department of the borough council.
On 22 June, the Department of the Environment issued a direction preventing planning permission from being

granted. That may have something to do with pressure from the hon. Member for Ealing, North, who will have quite a struggle to retain his seat because of the poll tax. People in flats and young couples who have taken on mortgages on their houses will struggle to pay twice as much under the community charge—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not widen the debate into that.

Mr. Bidwell: I digress, and I shall now return to the subject.
The additional housing that will be provided will help to combat the homelessness crisis and reduce the burden of the bed and breakfast bill on local ratepayers. Ealing has 1,700 people in temporary accommodation and 9,500 households on council waiting lists. The council has been told by central Government to provide 9,000 new homes in the borough. There is a great scarcity of land for private and public development. At the same time, under the proposals a new park will be opened for public use, and Ealing Green high school will be relocated to an equally suitable site.
No decision on the Cayton road application has yet been made, and the views of local people will be fully considered. The London borough of Ealing will consult Ealing Green high school about finding a suitable site. The public will save because such housing will relieve the colossal cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Those are the facts.
I have been looking up the record of the hon. Member for Ealing, North in debates. He warmly supported the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 against anxieties expressed by some Opposition Members. Locally, he is regarded as the ooslam bird who tries to fly in all directions simultaneously and he will come unstuck because of those antics today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. Denis Howell, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. David Amess, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. David Evennett and Mr. David Evans.

LOCAL AUTHORITY PLAYING FIELDS

Mr. Harry Greenway accordingly presented a Bill to remove from local authorities the power to dispose of land used as playing fields, except in circumstances where ownership is passed on for continued use as playing fields to a recreational association of charitable status under the terms of the Recreational Charities Act 1958: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 April and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund Act 1990.
Strathclyde Regional Council Order Confirmation Act 1990.
British Film Institute Southbank Act 1990.
Birmingham City Council Act 1990.

Social Security Bill (Allocation of Time)

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed to the allocation of time motion, I must announce to the House that I have selected all the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), with the exception of amendment (c).

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the following Table:—


TABLE


Allotted day
proceedings
Time for conclusion of Proceedings


First day
New Clauses 19, 21 and 22
9:00 p.m.



New Clauses 23 and 26
11:00 p.m.



New Clauses 1 to 6
Midnight



New Clauses 7 and 8
1:00 a.m.


Second day
Remaining New Clauses
7:00 p.m.



Amendments to Clauses; New
9:00 p.m.



Schedules and amendments to




Schedules




Third Reading
10:00 p.m.

(2) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Order of proceedings

2. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Dilatory Motions

3. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted day

4.—(I) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.
(3) If an alloted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (I) of Standing Order No. 14 shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and on the first allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of three hours.

Private business

5. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

6.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, other than the proceedings specified in sub-paragraph (2) below, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which the Table in paragraph 1 above specifies are to be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the second allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put (so far as they are applicable and notwithstanding any Order of the House relating to the order in which the Bill is to be considered) the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question that the new Schedule (amendment 22) be added to the Bill;
(d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill.
(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (I) or (2) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(5) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

7.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended,


before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying of supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

8. Nothing in this order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

10. In this Order
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Social Security Bill.

Hon. Members do not need me to tell them that my right hon. Friends and I do not table timetable motions without due consideration. We believe that it is important for all legislation, including this important Social Security Bill, to be debated and scrutinised properly by Parliament. For that reason alone, it is a matter of importance that one feels obliged to move such a motion, particularly on this fairly short Bill.

It was striking that the Bill's Committee stage was orderly and compact. Subsequently, we reached what I thought was a sensible agreement between the usual channels to allocate a day and a half for Report and Third Reading. Both sides judged that sufficient, so it should have been, and so, indeed, it was. For that reason, I attach some significance to the fact that the motion means that the House will spend more time on the Bill, not less, than was originally planned by the usual channels.

The Committee stage was, in many respects, a model of how the detailed scrutiny processes of the House should operate. Opposition Members moved about 120 amendments, some significant but others less so, and four new clauses which in their view would have improved the Bill. Where the Government were able to agree with them, my right hon. and hon. Friends accepted their points. The Government moved about 145 amendments and the whole process was completed in about 30 hours.

In his remarks at the end of the Committee stage, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security summed it up:
Some difficult issues have been discussed and I think we have managed to discuss them, despite the vigour and enthusiasm of the Opposition in attacking us, with good humour. That is very important, and in no way would I underestimate the strength of feeling of the Opposition about some of the measures.

On the same occasion, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)—I am pleased to see her taking her place with such zeal and diligence—who led for the Opposition, said:
It has been a civilised but serious Committee."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 8 March 1990; c. 462-63.]
That was a sensible judgment. I think that all my right hon. and hon. Friends who had participated in or followed the proceedings of the Committee agreed with her.

What happened subsequently, however, revealed a startling and far less constructive attitude by the Opposition. They have tabled no fewer than 21 new clauses and a further 21 amendments for consideration on Report. Few of the new clauses relate to subjects that were discussed in Committee. The remainder have been tabled to widen substantially the scope of the Bill and as pegs on which to hang a series of debates about matters not directly related to its main purposes. Unless we take sensible steps now, the debate will become unmanageable.

Mr. John Battle: Did not the Government table new clauses on matters not related to the substance of the Bill when it went before the Committee, precisely because they found themselves in difficulty with other legislation? The clauses that have been tacked on bear no relation to the substance of the Bill in its original form. The Government have extended the agenda and turned the Bill into a holdall to pick up the pieces of other shoddy legislation.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept that analysis. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall deal with it shortly. The usual process for the handling of a Bill is for the main substance to be debated in Committee and for discussion to focus more sharply when it returns to the Floor of the House. What has happened with this Bill has paralleled what happened with the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. The House will remember that that Bill made good progress through Committee, only to be brought to a virtual standstill on the Floor of the House by the behaviour of some Opposition Members when we began to make headway on Report.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House forgotten what really happened? That Bill was obstructed and eventually guillotined for what some might say was exactly the same reason as this Bill will be obstructed—I understand by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Back Benchers—and guillotined. We are debating the same issue—the charges in residential homes. Do not the Government bear responsibility for that? It has nothing to do with my hon. Friends.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. What happened on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was overwhelmingly the result of the time taken by Opposition Members. That Bill could continue its passage through the House in a sensible manner only after the successful moving of a timetable motion by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. He did so only after many hours of debate on Report.
The Social Security Bill is a much smaller Bill. Because of the similarity in the way in which the Opposition are apparently proposing to handle the Bill, it is sensible to let the House make a decision at the outset of the Report stage on the amount of time to be devoted to consideration


of the Bill. Indeed, that view is in line with the view increasingly often aired in more than one part of the House, that timetabling is generally helpful.

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I thought that that might provoke my hon. Friend.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend cast his mind towards the two Procedure Committee reports about the Committee and Report stages of Bills? If the Government had followed our advice, this debate might have been unnecessary. Our reports make two recommendations similar to what I think my right hon. and learned Friend is now attempting to do. Is not he attempting to ensure that all parts of a Bill are debated in Committee, and that only new factors of apparent importance are debated on Report? Would not it be better to timetable in that way and so ensure that this sort of position does not arise?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend gives me such comprehensive support that I must welcome it. However, I must take care to ensure that my response is not so enthusiastic that it makes him feel that the argument is already over. There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend said. One point about the recommendation for more timetabling that emerged from what he said is that the earlier that that is undertaken the more value it has.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be cautious about those recommendations, which touch on the heart of what the House is about. The Government, through their hubris last year, introduced 11 guillotines. That meant that much legislation was unargued, unreasoned and caused difficulty in the country through the necessity to defend our position. Our fear about the guillotine is that many of the issues arise as a consequence of debate, and are not matters of settled judgment beforehand. In a spirit of humility, I ask the Government to be cautious about such arguments.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would not imagine my hon. Friend making a point of that kind except in a spirit of the utmost humility and I accept it in that sense.
The time foreshadowed for the Report stage was a day and a half and that is not unreasonable. We are now providing for rather more time than that to be devoted to debate and for that to be carried out in a more orderly fashion. That should command reasonable support.
I hope that the House will agree that it makes sense to keep within reasonable bounds the amount of time that can be devoted on the Floor of the House to topics that were touched on or discussed in detail in Committee. There is much to be said for a fair, but disciplined approach to debating the new clauses and amendments that will shortly come before the House and the timetable motion will encourage that process. If the House approves the motion, the more self-disciplined we can be, the more new clauses and amendments we shall be able to debate.
I repeat the central point that the Bill will now have longer for debate than the one and a half days agreed

through the usual channels. Therefore, I see no merit in accepting the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Michael Meacher: The Leader of the House has repeated his earlier point that there will be more time to debate the Bill and its new clauses. How can that possibly be so when the first six Opposition new clauses are being squashed into one hour and when the most important of these is about poll tax benefit, and all hon. Members know that that will take up the whole hour on its own?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The total time allotted exceeds the normal one and a half sitting days—

Mr. Battle: That is time to debate Government new clauses.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government new clauses deal with important matters with which it is perfectly sensible to deal at this stage. For example, the social fund amendment is a response to events that have occurred since the Bill's introduction. The measure relating to income support payments for people in residential care and nursing homes is a sensible response to the concerns expressed earlier this month by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is a complicated area and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was understandably concerned to get it right. That new clause was tabled yesterday.
The new clause on occupational pensions tabled last Friday improves the existing provisions, following further and useful consultations with interested parties. The overwhelming majority of the Government amendments are simply designed, as you would expect, Mr. Speaker, to improve the detailed drafting of the Bill. I see no reason to apologise for bringing any of the new clauses to the House on Report.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Leader of the House explain what possible justification the Government have for tabling a three-and-a-half page new clause on the duties of fathers to maintain their children if that saves social security costs—as seems to be the Government's only interest? When the Prime Minister made her speech about that in January we had plenty of time left in Committee. Why did the Government not bring that important issue forward sooner? We will not have enough time to discuss it properly now because of the guillotine motion.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will explain, it is important that that matter should have been thought through carefully before it was debated in the House. The new clauses, including the one to which the hon. Lady has referred, have intrinsic merits and they will provide an opportunity for hon. Members to air their views on those issues.

Mr. George Howarth: The Leader of the House has just made a very serious point. He has suggested that the reason why the new clause has only just been introduced is that the issue had to be thought through. Was it not thought through when the Prime Minister made her speech in January?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course it was. Speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are lucid and


effective, but even her speeches require a little time to be translated into clauses and then find their way into Bills such as this.
The time that will be made available under these arrangements is a sensible allocation, not least in the light of the experience on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill to which I have referred. It is a sensible way to ensure that these matters are discussed in an orderly and sensible fashion. No Government can stand back and allow the proper management of the business of Parliament to be threatened by the unreasonable prospect that could have followed from handling the Bill without a timetable motion. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I shall try to be helpful, but I doubt whether the Government will take my advice. I cannot help reflecting that I have had the job of opposing a guillotine motion in the House on only one other occasion. The Government decisively rejected my advice and I have the feeling that they have regretted that decision ever since. It was made during the guillotine debate on 22 February 1988 on the poll tax Bill. I advised them that it was not a good idea to rush it through. There were 317 of them and 223 of us and, accordingly, the vote to rush the legislation through as quickly as possible was carried. The old phrase about turkeys voting for Christmas inevitably comes to mind. Having made the mistake once, perhaps the Government will listen more carefully today.
I am disappointed that the Leader of the House has chosen to bring forward the motion. I approach my job with a little caution, because I know that guillotine debates have a certain sameness about them, and I also know that it will not be long before the Government and Opposition are reversed. I do not disagree with the Leader of the House when he says that it is important to get sensible consideration of Bills in Committee. However, he stretched matters to excess in pretending that the guillotine on this series of debates constitutes the orderly management of Government business.
I had some hopes that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be a reforming Leader of the House. He has made promises about the private Bill procedure and I thought that he would find better ways to deal with such things. I am afraid that, increasingly, he is becoming a party hack putting through business as effectively as he can and stifling opposition and debate. He has been a little disappointing. The guillotine motion is not business management, it is crisis management.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: The hon. Gentleman talks about crisis management. As a fellow retread, he will recall that some years ago when he sat on the Government Benches as the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, we both witnessed the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) standing at the Dispatch Box and moving five guillotine motions in one day. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that was orderly and that it was good management?

Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman neglects the critical difference. At that time there was a deliberate attempt, helped by the House of Lords, to throw out major pieces of legislation to which we were committed. There was a different state of affairs at that time and the motions were presented much later in the parliamentary year. We had

fewer guillotine motions than the present Government. I will not bore the House by reading the list of all the guillotine motions that the Government have presented. In the two and a half years since the general election more guillotine motions have been brought forward by the Government than were brought forward during a similar period by the last Labour Government. That has happened even though the Government have a large majority, a supine press and a largely docile House of Lords. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that the state of affairs is totally different.
What are the possible explanations for the Government bringing in a guillotine motion on this legislation at such short notice? The first might be that we were running out of parliamentary time at the end of a parliamentary year. Clearly that does not apply to this legislation. I know that, to Conservative Members, it must seem a long time since the Queen's Speech, but I remind them that we are only three months into the parliamentary year.
A second possible reason is that the Government's legislative programme is threatened. I know that they are losing by-elections, but the Government still have a substantial majority in the House, so surely they cannot claim that their programme is threatened.
Have the Opposition behaved irresponsibly when considering the Bill? That cannot be the reason: Second Reading was on 22 January and the Committee had 12 sittings, so there can be no suggestion of filibustering or of the Opposition behaving unreasonably.
The reason for this guillotine is that the Government are in a panic. Just for the record, let us get straight how the Government tabled their five new clauses, which are complicated and which deal with important issues. One was tabled on Monday; two more were tabled early on Tuesday morning; a fourth was tabled a little later; and the final one, on residential accommodation, appeared only at 5 pm yesterday. The first we knew about the guillotine motion was yesterday morning. If that is not crisis management I do not know what is.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Surely the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the residential care provisions were changed because the Government were responding to the wishes of the House? He cannot grumble about that.

Mr. Grocott: The hon. Lady did not have the advantage that I had of being in Mid-Staffordshire on the day the Government lost the vote of residential accommodation and of seeing the panic at the Tory press conference when Conservatives had to explain how the Government were operating. I am sure that that panic has fed back to the Cabinet by now. The Government were in an indefensible position, so they are not being reasonable and sensible: they are panicking.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grocott: I shall not give way as I have already been speaking for some time.
The Government are panicking because they can no longer rely on many of their Back Benchers. On Tuesday night in the debate on the flagship of their legislative programme, the poll tax, they were deserted by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and by the


former Chancellor of the Exchequer, so it is not surprising that run-of-the-mill Back Benchers without big jobs are failing to support the Government.
As the Leader of the House rightly pointed out, our 21 new clauses touch on crucial areas such as residential care, the poll tax, the uprating of benefits in line with earnings, people with disabilities—important new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) deal with them—and the compensation of victims of radiation. Either all these new clauses, some of them supported by Conservative Members, will not be considered at all or debate on them will be grossly foreshortened. No Government with a majority of 100 or more, three months into the parliamentary year, should be doing this, and they would not be if they were in rational control of their programme.
I said at the beginning that I would try to be helpful, but I have a feeling that I am not striking a chord among Tory Members. If they will not take any notice of us I suggest, in their own interests, that they take a look at their record of rushing legislation through Parliament, to see what happens when they make a mess of it. The three guillotines on the "great" Social Security Bill still failed to produce a sensible Act. Time after time, with the poll tax legislation and social security legislation, the Government have not listened to reasoned argument and allowed enough time for debate, so they have looked stupid and sometimes have ended up in the courts thereafter.
The guillotine motion is not moved so that there can be sensible scrutiny of the Bill, but because the Government are in a panic. That is why we shall vote against it.

Sir George Young: Like the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), I hope to be helpful. His speech was short on enthusiasm and seemed to be a bit of a ritual. Perhaps it was a word-processor-written speech with "social security" inserted for the name of the previous legislation on which he may have opposed a guillotine motion.
I spoke on Second Reading, but did not serve in Committee. We had a reasoned debate, with support from both sides. I understand from my hon. Friends who served on the Committee that it was a civilised procedure. Therefore, at first sight it may seem that the legislation does not deserve a guillotine motion. The reason for the guillotine and why I support it is what happened a fortnight ago.
A fortnight ago, I voted in every Division through the night. The notion that if one allowed this debate to proceed through the night there would be a civilised and rational discussion of new clauses is betrayed by anybody who was here a fortnight ago or anybody who reads Hansard. We got through about one clause in four hours and did not put the time to good use. If this measure were not guillotined, we would waste the small hours, and tomorrow afternoon the Government would have to introduce a guillotine motion. Against practice and even the declared intentions of Labour Members, it is sensible to introduce this motion to ensure a civilised debate in reasonable hours.
Although I have not always supported guillotine motions in the past and I did not support one on the community charge, I shall vote for this one with enthusiasm.

Mr. George Howarth: I have followed the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but it is inconsistent. Is it not better to debate matters at length than not debate them at all, which is what he will vote for if he votes for the motion?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman misses my point. If one provides extensive time for debate, it is not put to productive use. I am not sure whether he was here a fortnight ago and listened to some of the debate—

Mr. Howarth: I was.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman was. I challenge him to say that the hours between 10 pm and 7 am were put to the best possible use, that we got through a whole series of new clauses and had a useful discussion. We did not. Labour Members filibustered. They used the time to spin out discussion—

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: No. The hon. Lady will be able to make her own speech.
That is why I have no hesitation in supporting the guillotine motion. We shall make more sensible use of time than if we did not have the guillotine and sat all through the night listening to boring speeches from Labour Members who are simply trying to spin out time. That does the House no good. People outside the House and Conservative Members wholly understand why the Government have introduced the motion.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am glad to have this opportunity to speak in the debate. I have spoken on one or two guillotine motions before and I shall refer to them.
The Leader of the House should have waited to listen to the debate. Whenever I moved a guillotine motion, I at least had the courtesy to listen to the debate. This is an important occasion, and he was at his lucid and most effective best—those were the words that he purloined from the Prime Minister—when he spoke to us. To run away immediately afterwards is grossly discourteous. It is not how the House of Commons should be run. He should be here to listen to the debate.
I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who is left on the burning boat and serves alone. He is probably better than his colleagues and if he had the chance to speak, it might be better all round. It is shocking for a Leader of the House to move a guillotine motion and to skedaddle off as though it were nothing to do with him. The Patronage Secretary moved the previous timetable motion because the Leader of the House was not present to move his own motion—he was off in Chile or somewhere. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's absence during that previous debate is all the more reason why he should have stayed today.
The behaviour of the Patronage Secretary was bad as well. I have never in all my time as a Member seen a more raucous, demonstrative Patronage Secretary. I thought that he had been appointed to the Chief Whip's Office to


bring a much-needed touch of elegance and courtesy. All his measures outside are matched when he comes into the Chamber. He sits next to the Leader of the House, shouts and interrupts everyone who wants to make a speech. He skedaddles off when he has the chance, leaving the hon. Member for Hallam, who is not allowed to reply, although I am sure that he is more capable of doing so than Ministers.
This is a discourteous way of treating the House of Commons, especially if the Government want the motion to be treated seriously, as it should be. I agree with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that it is dangerous for the House of Commons as a whole if we become used to the idea that we just need a guillotine motion to get business through.

Mr. Richard Holt: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is discourteous for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House not to be here, does he think that it is also discourteous for the shadow Leader of the House not to he here?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) made an effective speech from the House of Commons' point of view, and everyone who heard it knows that it was a good speech. He is here to listen to the debate. I should have thought that every Conservative Member would understand that for a Leader of the House to move a motion and then clear off without having heard any of the replies is a discourteous way to treat the House of Commons. When I was Leader of the House, I stayed pretty well throughout the debates, certainly on these matters, to listen to the view of the House of Commons.
I underline the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin. It is foolish, even from the Government's point of view, not to listen to the House of Commons. The main purposes of a Leader of the House are not only to listen and move motions but to take messages from here to the Cabinet. Perhaps the breakdown in the Government's operations has occurred because that main task has not been performed. Cabinet does not learn what the House of Commons says, for example, in the early hours of the morning, when some of the most interesting developments take place—such as the debate a week or so ago that led to the other guillotine motion.
If such events are not reported to No. 10 Downing street by the Leader of the House, it shows a great weakness in our government and injures Cabinet government. Whenever there is a fresh Government crisis, the Leader of the House says, "We shall go back to Cabinet government." He says that almost twice-weekly now, but he is one of the chief offenders. He should tell No. 10 Downing street and the Prime Minister around the Cabinet table each week what is happening here. He cannot do so if he is not here to see what happens. Even in the Government's own interests, it would be better for the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary to pay attention to the House of Commons for a change and learn some wisdom from this place.
I was provoked into making those comments by the conduct of those on the Government Front Bench, but I now wish to start on a different note. I agree with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that this is a serious matter for the House of Commons as a whole, although I disagree with the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G.

Young), who has great knowledge of the House. It is a serious matter if Governments of any complexion get into the habit of thinking, "We can always introduce a guillotine motion to deal with these matters. If we get into trouble, we need not worry too much, and we need not even think of it at the beginning of a Bill." Indeed, a proposal to that effect is sometimes put forward by the Select Committee on Procedure.
That idea has always in the past been rejected by the House, and it should be rejected. I regret that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), is not in his place because he could learn something by listening to this debate. It is important for all concerned to hear what the House of Commons as a whole has to say on issues such as this.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is attending a meeting upstairs.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman may have a good cause for not being here, but he makes interruptions in debates such as this and has suggested that the House should conduct itself in this way. As I say, he might attend here on occasions such as this because people can learn by listening to what is said in the Chamber.
The idea that we should have a cut and dried timetable for every Bill, with utter certainty about each measure going through in an allotted time, would do great injury to the House as a whole. After all, every Government, even the next Labour Government, would like such powers. We never sought such powers when we were in office. I accept that I introduced, and urged the House to introduce, guillotine motions on particular Bills. Indeed, we introduced five in a single day, as some people are kind enough to recall—[Interruption.]—but even then I said exactly what I am saying now, which is that it would be a great injury to the House of Commons to have cut and dried guillotine motions on all Bills. The Government would love to have such a power but, by the same reckoning, it would greatly injure the power of the House, including the power of Government Back Benchers.
That that is true is borne out by the experience of the last few years, and Conservative Members will recall the debates that took place on what is now the Official Secrets Act 1989. A guillotine was introduced on that measure at a late stage—not to control speeches by my hon. Friends, but to gag Conservative Members.
Is there anyone who does not think that that measure would have been better had the Government listened to what Back Benchers said, and had even gone to the extreme length of incorporating into the legislation some of the amendments tabled by their supporters? The Government would have done better from their point of view and from that of the legislation.
I urge the Government—as I urge the new Government who will be coming into office; nobody knows exactly when, but it is within a measurable time—not to be tempted by the idea of saying, "Let us have a cut and dried procedure so that we can get every Bill through in exactly the way we want."
If the Government take that attitude, they will, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin said, finish up with legislation with gross defects. No measure has ever been pushed through with grosser defects than the poll tax


legislation. The Government could have saved themselves a great deal of trouble by listening to what hon. Members in all parts of the House said about that legislation.
Had the Government not used the guillotine, they might even have had time to think up some of the brilliant ideas on the poll tax about which we have heard in the last week or two. Indeed, they might even have put those ideas to the House and got them approved. That is the purpose of debates in the House. I have found over a number of years that debates in Committee are some of the best. Those debates, be they late at night or early in the morning, are some of the most important of all.
A prime example of the point I am making occurred only a week or so ago, when the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton voted against the Government, and I accept that he has had a creditable record on the type of issue that was then before the House. He did his best to persuade the Government to adopt his view. Although he did not quite succeed, anyone who listened to that debate—and I listened to most of it—could see that that is what the House of Commons is for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made his case very effectively, but it was the cross-play of argument with several Conservative Members that made the debate a most memorable one. In the end, the Government had to give way, but it was not only because of the vote. I claim that those who listened to the debate could come to only one conclusion: that something had to be done.
If only the Government had been wise enough not to introduce the guillotine, the debates on the poll tax legislation could have been much better. The Government could have learnt something from the House of Commons and could have had second thoughts, but, far from learning from experience in the House of Commons, they rushed off to introduce the guillotine to deal with the situation.
I do not want to elaborate a point that has been made quite clearly, but I have to say that, so far as I can judge—and I am an expert on the subject—that is why the present Government's use of the guillotine has been far more dangerous, extensive and elaborate than that of any Government since the introduction of the mechanism by the Liberal party before the first world war. Previous Governments took some care. They paused before introducing the guillotine. That is the purpose of debates such as the one that we are now having, but even this debate has been cut down—to some extent, in my opinion, wrongly.
As things are going, it seems that the Government would like to make introduction of the guillotine a simple formality. The procedure is used so often that one might almost think that it was a formality already, that in every Bill there was a clause providing that, when the Committee stage or the Report stage has been reached, the guillotine will be brought in. The present Government have introduced more guillotines to curtail debate at this stage of Bills than any other Government in British history. By doing so, they have done injury to the House of Commons, but principally to themselves. The more this is done, the worse the government of the country becomes. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and hon. Friends, when they are given the chance to run affairs, will resist any

temptation to follow the present Government's example in this field—as in any other field. Indeed, I am sure that they will.
The Leader of the House comes into the Chamber with a real hangdog look on his face. Time and again he appears looking as if he has just come from a meeting with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). [Interruption.] I am glad to have from such high authority, confirmation that that is what the Leader of the House has been doing. That is his excuse. He will have to troop round the country to keep up with his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley.
Let me give the Leader of the House some advice. If he wants to finish off his right hon. Friend, we shall help him. We too think that the right hon. Gentleman is not fit to be Prime Minister. When it comes to a comparison, there is not much choice—"small choice in rotten apples", as Shakespeare would have said. If the Leader of the House really wants to deal with the right hon. Member for Henley, he has only to ask him why he voted so eagerly for the application of the poll tax in Scotland when he knew that it was going to be so injurious to England. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had the nerve to cross the Scottish border when he has been on his tours. He takes trips everywhere else. He should be invited to Scotland soon and asked to reply to that question.
All these matters could be dealt with properly if only the Government learned that they should provide time in the House for arguments to take place properly. That is why I oppose the motion in good conscience. The Minister for Social Security, who is to reply to the debate, knows something about the Bill. I am sure that he will try to defend the Government's position. No doubt he is as good a person to defend it as anybody; certainly he will be much better than the Leader of the House or the Patronage Secretary, with whose eloquence we had to content ourselves on the last guillotine motion.
It is better that the Minister should deal with the motion. He starts with a measure of good will. I am trying to dissipate some of it so that he does not have too easy a time. The Minister has a long record. I do not know who will be Leader of the House in the next Parliament, but I am sure that some hon. Members who are now on the Government side, and perhaps the Minister himself, will be on the Opposition Benches, remembering what I am saying today. They may reflect then on how wise I was.
If only the Government would get the message, how much better it would be for the country. When the Minister replies to the debate, I ask him not to make the formal reply which he has been given by the Leader of the House but to express the view which he would get from this side of the House in this and future debates.

Mr. Roger King: It is always a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), with his not infrequent strictures on the introduction of guillotine motions. One feels that one is listening to a maestro who had the opportunity, when he was in a similar position to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, of obtaining an entry in the "Guinness Book of Records" for the greatest number of guillotine motions introduced in one day. We are well


aware of that and we shall continue to remind the House of it when Opposition Members complain that we are guillotining happily.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Given that his Government have extended the guillotining process, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that there might be a danger that the next Government, whoever they may be, will extend the process further? Does not the hon. Gentleman worry about that?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It pre-empts what I intended to say in a few moments; perhaps I may come to it now.
The main problem that we face in the House is that we have opposition for opposition's sake. It has been going on for many years. Opposition Members recounted that the Government introduced a guillotine on the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which introduced the community charge. If my memory serves me right, we debated that measure for 180 hours or longer. Try as we might, we could not obtain from the Opposition one element of their alternative policy. It was just mindless opposition for the sake of opposition. Not one shred of policy came from the Opposition. There is still not a shred of policy on their alternative to the community charge, although they have a vague idea of values about which they trumpet in by-elections, but no one knows what the values are. It is like saying, "If you do not like my principles, I have plenty more where they came from."

Mr. Holt: Did my hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on the radio the other morning? When he was asked by the interviewer if the Labour party had made up its mind on whether the future funding of local government would be by a property tax or a tax on each individual in the property, he said that that was one of the little points that Labour had not quite worked out.

Mr. King: That is right, but we are not here to debate the community charge. I should welcome that opportunity because we might have the chance to flush out Opposition policy. My point is that after 180 hours of endless debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House we could not obtain one shred of policy from the Opposition.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend and I had the honour of serving in Committee on that Bill. Does he recall that Labour policy has changed twice since the Committee stage? Such policy as we were able to get out of the Opposition changed immediately afterwards, and it has subsequently changed again. What conclusions does my hon. Friend draw from that?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend invites me to draw conclusions. I note that the Labour party has introduced a flexible membership card, a credit card. It is like the party's policy—extremely flexible depending upon which by-election the party is contesting.

Mr. Brian Wilson: rose—

Mr. King: I am not giving way. I must get on because other hon. Members want to speak.
Not only did we have problems in flushing out any worthwhile opposition to the community charge and in obtaining concise, realistic debate, but we suffered the same experience on water privatisation. In my book that

was an outstanding achievement for the Government. It has transformed the water and sewage industry and put it on a sound financial footing, which will deliver quality and efficiency to the consumer. Try as we might, all we got from the Opposition was mindless opposition with not a shred of alternative policy.

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a danger of the House being misled by the hon. Gentleman, although I am sure he has no intention of doing so. No doubt he would want to confirm to the House that he and the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) were members of the Standing Committee on the Local Government Finance Bill, yet in all the hours of debate to which he referred they never opened their mouths.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I should like to hear a little more about the Social Security Bill.

Mr. King: I shall not travel along the path that I have been invited to follow, except to point out that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) obviously does not yet know the workings of the House. He does not realise that as Parliamentary Private Secretaries my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and I were not by convention entitled to make a contribution in Committee. Of course, our views are well known to the Government.
If we were to conclude the debate on the motion fairly abruptly, we should have about 14 more hours' debate on the Bill. That is a considerable amount of time. Not only will we continue until 1 o'clock tomorrow morning, but we will come back next Tuesday to complete consideration of the measure.
The experience that we have obtained in the House over the past few years with the introduction of a 10-minute limit on speeches at certain times shows succinctly that contributions to the point can be made in a short time. Open-ended debate encourages excessive waffling and flannel, which is often all that we hear from the Opposition when they do not like a measure but have no realistic alternative to offer in its place.
We owe it to the country to have clear, concise debate. There is an argument for having a timetable for Bills when they receive their Second Reading. We should debate that issue. Those of us who spend considerable time in Committee debating a measure come back to the House to hear the same points being debated all over again. Long hours are required to accommodate that debate. Timetabling a debate would not mean glossing over some points. On the contrary, it would concentrate the minds of hon. Members in an efficient debate on the matters at the core of the legislation. For that reason, I welcome the motion, so that we can get on with the real business, which is to improve social security benefits.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I feel that it ought to be said from this side of the House, relative to the intervention of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), that the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is not here is that he is attending a funeral, that of my late hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, Allan


Roberts, whose untimely passing is so widely mourned. I am sure that the hon. Member, with his customary decency, will now understand.
If the guillotining of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was a disgrace, the Government's action today plumbs new depths of infamy. Whereas the NHS Bill was debated in Committee for weeks of late night sittings, the Social Security Bill never disturbed Ministers' schedules beyond 1pm on but two days a week. That alone makes this a preposterous motion. It is one about which I feel very strongly and, unlike the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), I shall certainly oppose it.
There has never been any suggestion of filibustering: nor did the Order Paper suggest that the Bill's remaining stages could not be completed in due time and without this motion. The only portent of filibustering has come from the Secretary of State himself, who, by yesterday, had tabled four new clauses, one new schedule and 65 amendments.
Social security affects the lives of every family in this country and they expect their concerns to be fully debated on the Floor of this House. Our new clauses and amendments—and indeed those tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House—reflect their concern. Yet with this motion the Government are treating not only Parliament with studied contempt but all of our constituents who will be the victims of the huge cuts in public spending under this Bill.
Are Social Security Ministers so ashamed of their record that they wish to avoid debate? Do they not want to hear how people with AIDS are being forced to beg from charities for essential food and for items which the Department used to provide before 1986? Last year, charities provided £350,000 to people with AIDS, not for luxuries but for basic subsistence. Is not that both extremely cruel and deeply scandalous?
Does the Secretary of State not want to defend in detail the laughable claims that private occupational sick pay schemes provide adequate earnings-related cover for long-term sickness? Is he afraid to have fully debated in the House how severely disabled young people have their severe disablement allowance withdrawn? Is he hiding from the vast evidence of the need for personal care and assistance revealed by the independent living fund? Does he want to avoid having to make a definitive statement about the independent living fund's current financial crisis, which, if it is not resolved soon, could lead to people with disabilities having to return to lives of dependence?
The guillotine is calculated to prevent any meaningful debate on new clauses and amendments which are of the first importance to disabled people and which now have scant, if any, likelihood of being discussed. As the Secretary of State must know, many of these suggested changes to the Bill reflect the deep concern of the all-party disablement group.
Does the Secretary of State want to avoid discussion of the comments flowing from all sides on that pitiful document "The Way Ahead"? Many of the organisations of and for disabled people say it should have been christened "The Way Backwards". Peter Large, of the Disablement Income Group—than whom no one is more qualified to comment—has described "The Way Ahead" as
Nothing but a narrowing stony ledge",

and he says that ministerial
talk about a more coherent system of benefits is a sign of delirium.
The Secretary of State may recognise new clause 18, since it is practically identical to the clause inserted into the Social Security Act 1973. When Labour came to office in March 1974 it was abundantly clear that the outgoing Tory Administration had given no thought at all to the requirements of that part of the Act. Yet in six months the then Labour Government had published its proposals for the mobility allowance, which now goes to 615,000 people; for the invalid care allowance; and for the noncontributory invalidity pension.
I must congratulate Conservative Members on one thing. When they were in opposition there were no more enthusiastic proponents of increasing the social security budget. Indeed it became a standing joke in the Department that their next ten-minute rule Bill would seek to extend mobility allowance to pole-vaulters.
The Secretary of State is backing this motion only because he is profoundly ashamed of the record of the Government in which he serves. The House should reject the motion with the contempt that it demonstrates for the countless needful people who will lose from the provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of the statement made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I feel that my criticism of the shadow Leader of the House may well have been misplaced and in the circumstances I should like to withdraw it.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The real reasons why we are debating a guillotine motion today are not those given by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who opened the debate for the Opposition, but are given in the Morning Star and the Daily Mirror yesterday. On page 8, the Morning Star said:
Labour MPs plan a 23-hour all-night Commons sitting tomorrow",
and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is quoted in the Daily Mirror as saying:
Labour MPs plan to force an all-night Commons session tomorrow".
We know what all-night Commons sittings are about, and they are certainly not about debating Bills in detail. They are about filibustering and ensuring that time is wasted to prove some sort of parliamentary virility symbol.
We want a proper debate on the important subject before the House. I recall that, during the debates two weeks ago on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill—I was a member of the Committee on that Bill —I sat in the Chamber at 3 o'clock in the morning listening to a speech by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr Michael) that went on for 32 minutes. The whole purpose of his amendment was merely to make local health district boundaries and community health council district boundaries the same as the local authority districts. It took him 32 minutes to say precisely that.
Labour Members then went on for another two and a half hours, making the same points over and over again. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made two speeches, one lasting one hour and 48 minutes and the other lasting more than an hour, on small points in the


Bill. Having had that recent example, we are right to take heed of the public warnings in the national press that they intend to do the same with this Bill.
We know the reasons why the Opposition made all that fuss two weeks ago about the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. In Committee, we had a reasoned debate and went through the Bill sensibly, but their union paymasters in the National Union of Public Employees and in the Confederation of Health Service Employees were unhappy about the reasoned and moderate debates on that Bill and were determined that there should be a fuss on the Floor of the House.
Now the Opposition are seeking to do the same on this Bill. Having had a reasoned and sensible Committee stage, they want to create a rumpus on the Floor of the House, because that is where the television cameras are. That is why the Labour party is taking that attitude on Bill after Bill. We have reasoned debates in Committee; then there is a row and rumpus and synthetic indignation in the Chamber.
I listened with great interest to the speech by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). When it comes to timetable motions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for—I am sorry I am promoting him before his time—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said, the right hon. Gentleman is an expert. He takes the cake for guillotine motions. He never missed an opportunity to speak on them. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely consistent. When in opposition, he is always against guillotine motions, and when he is in government he is a firm supporter of them.

Mr. Holt: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who was Leader of the House, criticised my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for not being here. I wonder whether we shall hear similar criticism of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who is standing in for the shadow Leader of the House, for not being here to listen to the debate.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a good point. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
As we know, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent is the expert on these matters. No one has beaten his record for introducing five guillotine motions in one day, which he did on 20 July 1976—a date that will no doubt live for ever in the right hon. Gentleman's memory.
The right hon. Gentleman has spent a lifetime proclaiming himself a great libertarian and constitutionalist and a great upholder of the rights of the House of Commons. We heard it all again today. We should be more prepared to listen to the right hon. Gentleman and believe what he said if we had not had experience of his record in office from 1974 to 1979. First, as Leader of the House, he introduced five guillotine motions in one day. Then, as Secretary of State for Employment, he moved motion after motion to enforce the closed shop and force people to join trade unions.
When this great libertarian, who has spent his life telling us what a great constitutionalist he is, had the power to put his principles into practice, he did exactly the opposite. I shall bear that in mind when I listen to his lectures.
I want to conclude by quoting from Hansard.

Mr. Roger King: The lesson for the day.

Mr. Bennett: As my hon. Friend says, the lesson for the day.
My quotation is this;
We see a Labour Government as having a right and a duty to legislate against any attempts to frustrate us in the end from exercising our rights of legislation, whether in this House or in another place—and, of course, it is a particular illustration of the malice, folly and absurdity into which right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side have got themselves that when we exercise those ancient rights it is cheating and when they exercise them it is freedom."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1543.]
Those were the words of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent when he moved the five guillotine motions on 20 July 1976.
As I said, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the right hon. Gentleman's Government were entitled to move those guillotine motions, the present Government are entitled to move the guillotine motion on the Social Security Bill to ensure that we can have a proper and rational debate on this important measure and that we do not face a filibuster—the macho-virility symbol of a weak and divided Opposition.

Mr. Bob Cryer: For a weak and divided Opposition, we did not do badly in Mid-Staffordshire where the electorate decided on a swing of 21 per cent. in favour of Labour. The previous speech came from one of the most noxious Tories, although there are a number of candidates for the title so it is difficult to single out the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).
Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said that they would support the guillotine motion because of their experience of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Anyone capable of an objective assessment could fairly claim that not only did we have a debate on important issues throughout the night on that Bill, but that a number of Labour Members were not called in the debate. We were anxious to talk about the balloting provisions for the opting-out process, and so on. So many of us were present that we could not all be called. In all, four Opposition Members were not called, not because there was a guillotine but because the House wanted to get on to another subject. It is simply not true to say that there was an organised filibuster.
The National Health Service and Community Care Bill is of extreme concern because its effects will be so damaging. We therefore wanted to get our remarks on the record in Hansard to make it clear beyond peradventure that we oppose the damage that the Bill will do to the National Health Service and that we shall restore the National Health Service as a full public service after the next general election when we will be swept into office with a mandate to do that.
The same is true of the Social Security Bill. It may be shorter than the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, but it is important. The Minister knows full well that his Department produces some of the most shoddy legislation with some of the most shoddy appendages of secondary legislation. It is responsible for the most errors and its legislation is subject to the greatest number of court cases. The Bill is shorter than the NHS Bill, but it still has 18 clauses, six schedules and 55 pages and includes in its provisions the repeal of nearly 100 sections of several other Acts. Perhaps we should help the Minister to avoid further


court actions. One of the new proposals tabled by the Minister would reverse a court action that his Department sustained, which reversed the aim and effect of legislation previously passed by the House. It might not be a bad idea to spend some extra time on a matter which, by common consent of hon. Members on both sides of the House—it is a question of fact—is subject to the most challenges in court.
The reason for that is that Social Security Bills affect most people in the country. This Bill will affect as many people as the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, if not more. Fortunately, some people go through life without ever having to be treated in a National Health Service hospital. Some go through life without even having to see their GP. But it is rare for people not to have to consider some aspect or other of social security, for themselves or for a relative. That is why the allocation of time motion is ill advised and ill judged.
The guillotine motion will have two effects. In the ordinary course of debate, the House creates its own discipline. There is usually the sense that hon. Members want to move to a vote. People say, "Do not speak for too long because we want to vote at 10 o'clock." Everyone knows that that happens. In addition to removing that voluntary discipline, which requires no imposition by the Whips, the guillotine removes the initiative from the Opposition and places it with the Government. With a guillotine, the Government and their supporters know that they can talk for as long as they choose and rob the Opposition of the opportunity to advance their case. The longer they take, the less time the Opposition will have, and the guillotine will fall, irrespective of who takes up the time.
In Committee, it is an entirely different matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) raised a point of order about the situation that obtained in the Committee on the last Local Government Finance Bill. We have heard expostulations from the hon. Member for Northfield to the effect that we have had plenty of discussion. We know that, in Committee, he kept quiet. The general instruction to Government supporters in Committee is to keep quiet and not to take up the time because the Government want to get their Bill through. That means that the initiative is with the Opposition, and that is right and proper.
We are here to criticise and it is interesting to hear Tory Members say that Opposition Members are here simply for the sake of opposing. They say that they want an opposition in eastern Europe. They have not said that they want a tame opposition in Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the other eastern European countries. They did not say of Romania that Ceausescu should have an opposition but only if they were a tame opposition who did not challenge Ceausescu's Government. But that is what they say they want here. They say that we are opposing for the sake of opposing. That is patently untrue. We seek to challenge the Government and we need time to do that.
The trouble with guillotining is that it diminishes the opportunity for proper debate and robs the Opposition of their main job of scrutinising legislation. That has to be done because most Conservative Members are subservient

and will not challenge their own party's legislation. They are frightened to do so after the Mid-Staffordshire by-election.

Mr. Roger King: Opposition for opposition's sake is not a good thing. Opposition against a background of proper policies is something else, but Labour does not have any policies. Will the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) say whether he is in favour of a timetable motion —yes or no?

Mr. Cryer: I am opposed to the timetable motion before the House and shall vote against it, and I have tabled amendments to try to make the motion more equitable.
When a Labour Government introduced timetable motions, which have been well debated this afternoon, Lord Hailsham described that Government as an elective dictatorship. At the time, we did not have a majority, so we were never certain of getting anything through the House —let alone a guillotine motion. We had to convince the minority parties in debate that they should vote with us.
What of the comments of Lord Hailsham and his cronies today? Given that the Government have an overall majority over Labour in this House of 150, and over other Opposition parties of 100, the timetable motion is a good example of an elective dictatorship imposing its will on this House and robbing the Opposition of an opportunity to oppose legislation—in just the same petty way that the Government introduced several statements yesterday, to try to rob us of the opportunity to present the victor in the Mid-Staffordshire by-election at a time convenient to most right hon. and hon. Members, and when my new hon. Friend would have been seen by millions taking her seat. The Government's tactic did not work but merely focused more attention on the newest Member of the House—showing again that the Government are losing their touch.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman recall this quote:
A timetable motion is an exceedingly sensible addition to a Bill … The principle of a timetable motion is highly commendable as a general rule. It is not cutting down debate".—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1728-29.]
Those were the words of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on 20 July 1976, when speaking to timetable motions on the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and Education Bill.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to my words on that occasion. I am all in favour of quoting from Hansard. Right hon. and hon. Members are on record for the very purpose of ensuring some accountability. The Government are trying to remove that accountability from the Opposition and to fill out the time available within a guillotine with speeches by Tory Members, thereby robbing Opposition Members of the right to place their views on the record.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) does not have a good record for consistency. He spoke of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, on whose Committee I also served. The hon. Gentleman is on record as signing an early-day motion in support of enrolled nurses having a right to training, yet when I moved an amendment for that purpose he voted against because he thought that that would go unnoticed in Committee.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes the valuable point that all the comments and views expressed by right hon. and hon. Members are open to scrutiny. I am certainly willing to stand by my own past comments.

Ms. Short: All right hon. and hon. Members would agree that there must be guillotines in some circumstances, because every Government must get their business through Parliament. However, today's debate centres on our desire to raise a series of questions on social security measures that have hurt people throughout Britain. I refer to the Government's failure to provide proper pensions, child benefit, treatment of the homeless, and so on.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are willing to stay up through the night to debate those matters. We have made it clear that we are not trying to jeopardise tomorrow's business. The timetable motion is an attempt to prevent Opposition Members from raising those issues so that lazy Conservative Members can go to bed.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend echoes my point that the Opposition have a serious purpose in mind in opposing the timetable motion. We are concerned that legislation leaving the House should be as clear and unambiguous and equitable as possible. If any Conservative Member wants evidence of my genuine concern, I remind the House that I spent hours, as Chair of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, ensuring that that was done. Statutory instruments of the Department of Social Security have often had to he reported to the House because of their ambiguity and unusual use of power. We make a just and valid claim when we say that our action is motivated by concern about the Government's attempts to compress, for example, Government new clauses 23 and 26 into one hour of debate, as they intend to do also with new clauses 1 to 6 and new clauses 7 and 8. My amendment would extend the final guillotine from 1 am to 2 am, which would give the House an opportunity to debate more thoroughly new clauses 7 and 8.
New clause 7 is complicated, and relates to applicable amounts, and new clause 8 encapsulates a private Member's Bill dealing with Crown employees exposed to radiation. I refer to service men who ran that risk in the service of their country, and who are a body of people normally much admired by Conservative Members. My amendment would allow the House to debate and reach a decision on the provision of compensation for former Crown employees suffering from leukaemia; cancer of the thyroid, breast, pharynx, oesophagus, stomach, small intestine or pancreas; multiple myeloma; lymphomas except Hodgkin's disease; cancer of the bile ducts or gall bladder; or primary liver cancer, except if caused by cirrhosis or hepatitis B. Those diseases have been contracted by people as a result of their service to the Crown and exposure to radiation, and they now rightly seek compensation—such as that paid in the United States of America, where proper legislation already exists.
The House should have an opportunity to debate new clause 8 extensively, but it is squashed into one hour together with new clause 7. What is the betting that the Tory Whips will organise Tory Members to vote against it?
New clause 8 does not have the support only of Labour Members, which is why my amendments place particular emphasis on giving more time to debate that new clause in particular. Eight Tories, 11 Labour Members, two SDP Members, one Liberal, and one Scottish National party

Member put their names to that new clause, so it has the support of a cross-section of the House. I hope that the Government will encourage their own Members to support new clause 8 in the Lobby, and so provide a little help to literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have suffered ill effects as a consequence of their service to this country. We shall see what happens.
New clause 8 was tabled because a handful of Tory Members set out to sabotage the private Member's Bill on the same subject, which should have enjoyed a consensus of the House. Instead, there was filibustering on its Second Reading to prevent the Bill from progressing further.
My second amendment would extend the time available for Third Reading by two hours, to 12 midnight. I am willing to remain here for that length of time, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends, because the legislation is important enough to justify doing so. The guillotine is trampling on the rights of Parliament and the good work of the Opposition, but it will avail the Government absolutely nothing, as the Mid-Staffordshire by-election amply demonstrated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to move his amendment (a)?

Mr. Cryer: Yes, formally.
Amendment proposed: (a), in paragraph (i), leave out '1.00 am' and insert '2.00 am'.—{Mr. Cryer.]

Mr. Richard Shepherd: We are here as citizens chosen by our fellow citizens to represent them here in what used to be referred to when I was growing up as parliamentary Government. It reflects the truth that Churchill identified, which is that the people are sovereign. We give authority to Governments and substance to the rule of law. I remind right hon. and hon. Members, following the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), the former Leader of the Opposition, that our authority, springing from the people, is the very basis of that power and, as Burke said, parliamentary democracy is not just the number of our people divided by two plus one; it is the whole process of argument and reason. Although we may disagree, ultimately authority is secured for acquiescence on the basis of the process of argument and reason.
It is not on the merits of the guillotine today or another guillotine that I rise to make that remembrance. Last Session we passed 11 guillotines with the greatest parliamentary majority conceivable in a parliamentary democracy. In 1945, when a Labour Government were elected with perhaps the most radical programme of any Government in the history of our nation, they did not use the guillotine as far as I can recall, and if they did it is almost unidentifiable. That Government brought in legislation that transformed the nation and touched on great passions for the right and for the left. Yet they were able to secure the business of the country without truncating and cutting out debate.
I reflect on that time because it is discussed in Leo Amery's book "Thoughts on the Constitution" which examines the legislative programme of that Labour Government to which he was not particularly well disposed. In one parliamentary Session they passed some 70 pieces of legislation without the need to resort to a guillotine.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend has just identified the nub of the problem we face today, which is not the size of the Government's majority or the Government's radical proposals, but the actions and behaviour of the Opposition. Attlee's Government were not faced with an intransigent mob as we are today.

Mr. Shepherd: I note what my hon. Friend said. Perhaps as Milton said in "Areopagitica", we ought to have a little tolerance of each other. That is true, but it is not a requirement of membership of the House to be particularly tolerant. Our duty is to scrutinise legislation because on our authority it becomes the law of the land.
I said that last Session we had 11 guillotines and supplemental guillotines—something I had not encountered before. I well recall that we used a guillotine motion to secure one hour's debate because the Government were so nervous.
The prejudgment of issues is a foolish approach to our business. After all, it is perhaps during debate that we realise the wrongness or the weight of arguments that we had not prejudged or considered would have arisen. I have been in the House for 11 years and I have watched Ministers and right hon. and hon. Members discover the point of opposing and conflicting arguments. That is an extremely important process which would be damaged by a rush into curtailment of debate.
My purpose was not to take up much of the time of the House but to reinforce time and again that it is in the interests of the Government that I support to be extraordinarily cautious in their approach to guillotines. There has been much reference to going through the night and the poverty of discussion through the night, but there is no reason why we should go through the night. There is nothing wrong with the parliamentary year. We could stage the Bill over three days.
Leo Amery, the father of a very distinguished right hon. Member, pointed out that Second Readings, which often contain the principles of Bills, often took two or three days. Now we are shocked at the very thought of something taking a day. In some instances I have sat here when important pieces of legislation have been given only half a day for Second Reading. We then think that 180 hours in Committee—after all, it is to our advantage for there to be scrupulousness in Committee—justifies condensing important legislation covering, in some instances, hundreds of clauses into a few hours of debate. That serves us ill.
Last year when the Water Bill was under a guillotine, we considered about 300 additional amendments, a large number of which were tabled by the Government and 80 of which were substantive. It is a shame to ourselves as citizens representing fellow citizens that we charged that through. Of course, our courts are now lumbered with cases trying to identify what we intended through the legislative words that we used.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the fact that more than 500 Government amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill were tabled, and that about 600 Government amendments were tabled to the Local Government Finance Bill which dealt with the poll tax? Many of those amendments were not discussed, but we now know the result of incorporating them.

Mr. Shepherd: I presume that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was intended to support my contention.
Governments are formed and given authority by the House. Now, all too often the tail wags the dog. This is parliamentary Government and it requires us properly and responsibly to return to our fellow citizens and say that we have honourably considered the legislation. There is nothing partisan in that as one day we may be in opposition and all the calls that we now hear from the Opposition will be our calls.
It is true, tedious, tiresome and sad for our nation that Ministers one day demand the necessity of a guillotine and the following day, as we have just heard from the Opposition, they stand on the other side of the House and say that it is outrageous. I have never been given the Queen's commission to serve on the Treasury Bench, and I do not expect that call immediately, but I know that that dual approach, that almost duplicity of saying one thing from the Treasury Bench and another thing from Opposition Benches as if it were only a partisan exchange, loses the essential flame of what we are about and our authority. Our authority is to redress the grievances of people and to give authority to the Government so that they may govern, as the Treasury Bench exists only because of the House of Commons being given authority by the people out there. Consistently, time and again, we are throwing through ill-considered legislation.
I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has more important business elsewhere, as has the Patronage Secretary, and I am sorry that those on the Labour Front Bench have responded in like measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are here."] I apologise, as those on the Labour Front Bench have returned.
The guillotine ill serves my party's interests, but most of all it diminishes the authority of the House when it is treated so disdainfully by the constant pressure to get ill-considered legislation through the House.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who made a powerful and passionate speech with which I agree entirely.
Governments must reserve the right, in principle, to table guillotine motions, but they must be used more sparingly than they are being used by this Administration. For that specific reason, I object to the motion.
If I understood the justification for the motion given by the Leader of the House, it is that too many new clauses have been tabled. However, that applies not only to the official Opposition—I understand that the usual channels operate principally between the two major parties—because other parties are involved. Back Benchers must also be considered, yet the Leader of the House ignored them when trying to justify the motion.
There is no justification for the motion. The Government forget that we return to the subject of social security every year. Therefore, it is not open to them to say, "If we do not seize this opportunity it will be five or 10 years before we can deal with these issues." There is no reason for the Government's indecent haste in tabling the new clauses that they have inflicted on the House.
I could not agree more with the point made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. It does the House no


service for the Government so regularly to table guillotine motions. I object to the fact that they have complete control of the time that is allocated. If they said, "We shall allocate the time and the Opposition can use it how they wish," it would allow more efffective opposition and enable them to have their legislation within the limits of their timetable.
The Government's new clauses take up much space on the Amendment Paper. Clause 21 is three and a half pages long. We have been given ludicrously little time to scrutinise clauses of such length. That demeans the process of democracy and makes it impossible for Opposition Members effectively to scrutinise legislation.
The Government could have waited before tabling new clause 19. They have had the report of the Occupational Pensions Board for almost a year. It has been tabled because they made a hash of drafting the Bill. Instead of being pushed through under the guillotine, it should have waited until next year.
New clause 21, which is three and a half pages long, which applies to the liability for maintenance of dependants, is of fundamental and far-reaching importance. That idea appeared in the Government's mind after a fevered sleepless night. Instead of waiting until next year's Social Security Bill, they have stuck it on to the fag end of the Report stage of this Bill, without any justification whatever.
New clause 22 is a direct response to the Government's duffing up by the courts. The courts will not be grateful for the Government's response. The new clause acts retrospectively and changes the provisions that have obtained since 1975 to what the Government thought they should have been in the first place. Earlier, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said that that is not how we should amend legislation. That procedure is not guaranteed to succeed and will not make it simpler for the courts to interpret the Bill.
New clause 23 results from another bloody nose that the Government got from the courts on the iniquitous way that the social fund is being administered. It is ridiculous that the Government have tabled it at such short notice. The same applies to new clause 26. We had a substantial debate on income support on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
The Government's new clauses are not necessary to amend social security legislation and are not in the interests of proper and effective scrutiny. After we have considered those new clauses, what time will be left for other amendments?
I take exception to the suggestion of the Leader of the House that, on Report, hon. Members can only refine what was done in Committee. My party was unable to serve on the Committee that considered the Bill. I make no complaint about that, because the minority parties were as well represented as they could have been, but some hon. Members do not have the benefit of serving on Standing Committees. It is wrong for the House to accept that on Report hon. Members are doing only a wee bit of fine tuning.
The Standing Committee did honest and sensible work, but it is an important part of hon. Members' work to scrutinise de novo the work done in Committee as well as that done on Second Reading. The Chair is advised, perfectly properly, about the priority of the amendments, but the idea that we should only refine what was done in Committee should not be given currency or support.
I make a plea on behalf of the minority parties for less business in the House. Other legislative processes in other constituent parts of the United Kingdom might make the Minister's job easier. The Government should take the sensible course and establish a Scottish Parliament with responsibility for some of these matters. The House could then discuss legislation at its leisure. The legislative process would be none the worse for that.
Members of the official Opposition are girding their loins for retaliation. If guillotine motions are being moved before the long, hot summer season starts, goodness knows how many long and tedious nights we shall spend not doing ourselves any credit because we cannot properly scrutinise legislation in the early hours of the morning. That is not a sensible way to run the country. I hope that the Government will think seriously before moving future guillotine motions, which are bad for business and bad for the legislation that hon. Members have to scrutinise.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I shall be brief. Later this evening, we shall debate new clause 1 on community charge benefits, which was tabled by the Opposition. The political issues of the greatest significance and most interest to our constituents are those surrounding the community charge.
Before we dispatch the Bill, it is important that we have further discussion and debate on the amendments, and perhaps further amendments on how to deal with some of the problems that will face our constituents because of the community charge. I believe that that is vital and—

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Essential.

Mr. Marlow: Yes, essential.
I speak as someone who supports the principle and idea behind the community charge. It is right that everyone should pay towards the costs of local government and it is wrong that people should be able to vote for a local authority, and sometimes vote in extravagant local authorities, when they do not foot the bill.
The levels of community charge that are being presented are way above the levels that Conservative Members and even the Government anticipated. That is due, in part, to local authorities being extravagant in their expenditure. However, that is the position with which we are faced.
Like other hon. Members, I recently canvassed my constituents. I knocked on one door, said who I was and asked the lady what she thought about the community charge. She burst into tears—[AN HON. MEMBER: "She saw you standing there."] I am trying to make a serious speech on a serious issue. That lady's distress had nothing to do with being anti-Government or anti-Tory; it was because she was confronted with the problem of trying to cope with the financial burden being put on her household. She is probably entitled to transitional relief or rebate, but she was not aware of that. She lives in a small terraced house and she has been confronted with an additional financial burden with which she cannot cope.
Some couples with relatively low pay will have to find an additional £5 per week virtually from thin air. Where will they find it? Other couples have to find up to an additional £9 per week virtually from thin air. In some


cases, their pay has risen little or not at all. I am talking about relatively low-paid people living in small houses in inner-city areas.
Pensioners are deeply concerned about the attrition of their savings. I am glad that the Government have done something about that, but I wonder whether it is enough. There is a great deal of anxiety about the levels of community charge, which range between £250 and £500, and it is an unfair anxiety. I know that the Government are aware of the problems, as they, too, have been taken by surprise by the levels of community charge. I know that they want to do something about that, but they say that they will do it next year. That is no good; it must be done this year. The current position is unfair and unreasonable.
The levels of community charge—whether £250, £450 or £500—must be reduced. Local authorities have made their predictions and set their budgets, so there is no point in saying that we cannot put more money into the system because local authorities will spend it. Any money that we put into the system now will go straight to our constituents to reduce the fearsome burden that concerns them so much.
We can and should do that, but how? There should be a national rebate of the community charge. That will cost money, which must come from somewhere. Last week's Budget will be followed by a Finance Bill, and we can change the Budget details through that. Instead of increasing tax thresholds, they should be maintained at their current level and the tax raised used to reduce each person's community charge by £42. There could be a 1p increase in income tax. People are concerned that the community charge is regressive rather than progressive. If 1p is put on income tax, those who earn the money would pay more towards it.
By those two means, we could reduce each person's community charge by between £80 and £100. That would bring charges down to between £150 and £350. No one will whinge or think it unfair if they have to pay £150 for everything that is provided by local government. Those who would pay £350 would say, "Why are we paying more?"
The main purpose of the community charge is to introduce accountability, and under those circumstances accountability would work. Presently, everyone feels that he has an unfair burden and is paying too much. If there are problems on the streets and if there are problems with non-payment, to a certain extent people will sympathise and the community charge that I support and that I believe is the only proper and sensible way to finance local government will never be properly launched. The Government must bring down the levels this year, find the money from central taxation and so remove the anxieties of many people.
If the community charge is a fair and proper system, it will work and there will be accountability. There will be problems over the next six months if the Government leave it until next year to introduce changes. How will accountability work if the system is different next year, and the fudge by local councils this year of increasing expenditure will also happen next year? It is only fair that there should be changes and that they should be made

now. There should be a national rebate of between £80 and £100, and that could be done through this Bill. I very much hope that the Government are listening.

Mr. John Battle: Occasionally, in what are becoming these all-too-frequent debates, our politics are rightly called back to some of the basic principles and practices of parliamentary democracy. That was shown in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). To my mind, what characterises Parliament under this Government is that it is pushed to its limits. The legislative programme is far too heavy. Controversial material is introduced which is clearly not thought out and which is then forced through by whipping rather than being properly considered. It appears that legislation is now the Whips' business rather than an issue for debate and scrutiny.
I was surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), because there is no proper discussion. Two years ago, Opposition Members, in Committee and again on the Floor of the House, outlined precisely the effects of introducing the poll tax and showed who would pay the price. The record shows that in Committee we asked whether there would be any transitional relief. "No," was the reply at the time. Judging from the shouts across the Chamber the other night, it appears that Conservative Members still think that there can be a 100 per cent. rebate. Most of us, and certainly the public, know that, on the instruction of the Prime Minister, every person must pay a minimum of 20 per cent. of their poll tax, regardless of ability to pay.
The hon. Gentleman called upon the Government to take action now, not next year. They had the opportunity to take action not last year, but the year before. We are slightly encouraged that at least some Conservative Members were willing to listen to the argument and the debate and to vote for sensible clauses to ameliorate the destructive elements of the poll tax.
It is not long since we faced a similar position with the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. I sat in the Chamber throughout the whole of the Report stage, waiting to speak. As the hon. Member for AldridgeBrownhills reminded us, we are elected to raise matters on behalf of our constituents. I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee that considered that Bill. Although my constituents face proposals for self-governing hospital trusts, and although there are great worries about doctors' contracts, I could not raise those matters on behalf of my constituents because the timetable motion ruled out those clauses from the business of the House.
I served on the Committee that considered this Bill and, as has been said, the Committee stage was both reasonable and sensible. One reason for that—we make no apology for it—was our right to reserve our position and not to vote on every item in the Bill. We did not want the Bill to be guillotined in Committee. The Government accepted that we would again raise certain topics when the Bill returned to the Floor of the House. Those matters are of great importance, and hon. Members need to hear the arguments and vote on the issues.
That is why we tabled new clauses. As a result of the guillotine motion, I will not be able to speak on the clauses


to which my name appears. Those new clauses deal with the uprating for pensioners and social security benefits for the families of prisoners, who do not receive them at the moment because of an anomaly in the law. In Committee, the Minister said that, if we brought that issue back to the Floor of the House, we could sort out that minor anomaly. That will not happen, because of the guillotine motion. I represent one of the most overcrowded prisons in the country, and because of the guillotine motion I will have difficulty in representing my constituents today.
The Bill originally had 18 clauses, but there are 17 Government new clauses on the Amendment Paper today. That represents almost a new Bill. The new clauses introduce completely new material as a result of the Government's failure in shoddy legislation in other Bills.
One of the Government new clauses results from the fact that the High Court overruled the Government on the social fund regulations. That new clause is not the result of Opposition filibustering; it is the result of bad legislation, which the Opposition opposed at the time. The Government were caught out by the courts and they have been forced to alter the Bill to try to sort the matter out and ratify their position.
The Government lost a vote on Report on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill on the issue of residential care, so they have had to find a convenient Bill on to which to tag an alteration to correct that position. That explains the reason behind another of the Government's new clauses. That new clause and the one about the social fund have nothing to do with issues that we discussed in Committee.
We are entitled to ask what the Government are scared of. Are they scared of the official Opposition, or are they afraid of opposition on the Government Benches? The Government appear to be afraid of opening up the issues that surround the Bill and the new clauses, because this Government will go down in history as the Government who punished the poor and presided over increasing poverty in our society.
The poor are being economically and socially marginalised. They are also being politically marginalised off the agenda through the arcane guillotine games that the Government are playing. The Government are prepared to redefine the poor away by refusing to accept a standard definition of poverty. They are also attempting to manipulate discussion on those issues off the agenda. The Government can ignore contradictory evidence and they will distort the language, but they have consistently avoided any serious debate of the devastating impact that social security legislation has had on poverty.
It is important that we raise such issues if we are to understand the relationship between the Budget and social security legislation. There is a deliberate hidden fiscal policy to price out the poor. When we consider the inter-working of taxation and the Budget with the benefit system, it is clear that taxes have been redistributed. Income is being taken from the pockets of the poor and put into the wallets of the rich.
The most blatant example of that was the poll tax referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). It is amazing how late in the day Conservative Members have woken up to the effects of legislation which the Government are putting through the House. The poll tax has plainly been designed to fall more heavily on the poor than on the rich. That is what the

Secretary of State at the time claimed that it was designed to do. It was not supposed to offer real protection, because it takes no account of the ability to pay.
Late in the day, after the poll tax Bill has been passed and after Conservative Members voted for it, they are now voicing their disquiet. At least some Conservative Members listened to the debate and perhaps voted accordingly. However, it is amazing how many Conservative Members now pretend that they did not vote for the poll tax Bill and that they did not vote against the Opposition clauses which warned people what would happen.
This guillotine motion prevents us from considering the Bill which contains reductions in the severe disablement allowance and in the reduced earnings allowance. In Committee, we served notice on the Government that we would bring those issues back to the Floor of the House, because the country has a right to know what the Government are doing in social security legislation.
We have not had an opportunity to discuss the report from the Government Actuary. It is about time that we had an opportunity properly to discuss the distribution of wealth and income and the condition of the poor in our society. The Government have initiated no such debate. The document to which I want to refer is entitled the "Report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1990 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1990" and was published in January.
The report offers an interesting clue to the future, which does not appear in any other Government document. Paragraph 10(i) contains an assumption that the number of unemployed people in Britain will rise to 1·75 million in 1990–91. That is a clear prediction that unemployment will rise. Paragraph 21 is more interesting, in that it relates to the effect of different assumptions on unemployment and earnings. It states that, if the average number of unemployed people was to be 100,000 higher and corresponding assumptions were made,
the contribution income in 1989–90 would be £110 million lower and expenditure would rise by £65 million.
That means that there will be an 8·5 per cent. fall in the national insurance fund as a result of rising unemployment in the next financial year. There will be a net loss of £175 million.
It is not good enough for the Government to tell us now that they cannot pay the pensioners their uprating, and that they must push the poor down. It is no good the Government saying that they cannot do more at the margins to assist people facing the poll tax and that they can only tinker at the edges of the savings concessions. It is not good enough for them to say that there is not enough money. They are taking money by failing to uprate benefits and pensions. Government reports state that it is more politically expedient to take funds from the poor and excluded in our society, including the unemployed, than to have a system under which there is a fairer and more equitable distribution of taxes at local or national level.
It is about time that we had a thorough debate on those matters. In its original form, this Bill contained only brief bits of policy on a wide range of topics. It has turned into a rag bag as a result of the Government's failure in other areas of policy, and that failure was highlighted in the High Court. Other Bills have been thrown into this one as a result of court decisions and because the Government failed in other Bills.


While I have been a Member of this place, a huge amount of legislation has come before the House. A great number of Bills have come before the House every Session. Despite the Government's attempt to bludgeon those Bills through, as a result of our failure to give those Bills full and proper critical scrutiny, the public have been delivered of a raft of shoddy legislation.
It is amazing that Conservative Members will vote for the guillotine motion and then vote without considering the issues in the amendments and new clauses. Conservative Members will wake up late in the day and wonder why they did not vote against this motion because the public are upset about what the Government are doing. If Conservative Members will face up to that, they should consider whether they should vote against their guillotine motion.
We could then have proper consideration of the major issues. The poll tax rebate system is a major issue, so let us discuss it now. We should spend what time it takes to get it right; otherwise, the public will be short-changed and the people who pay the price for short-changing legislation at the moment are the poorest.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Last week some of us spent much time and exercised our consciences in voting down, regretfully, a measure put forward by our Government on residential care. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, for whom I have profound respect, has put forward a clause that some of us will be able respectably to support. Some £70 million will ensure that what I am confident the Government did not want to happen will not happen. If they had listened to us before, much embarrassment could have been saved over the community charge benefits. I say with no sadness and with great pride that the principle of this measure has a tremendous amount to recommend it. However, as a practice it has almost nothing to recommend it. I voted against it from the start. I have served on Committees examining Bills and over a period of three years nowhere can my name be found supporting the community charge.

Mr. Salmond: Did the hon. Gentleman's votes against the poll tax legislation also apply to the Scottish legislation or did he vote to impose it on the Scottish people even though he finds it so distressing for his own constituents?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that. He was not here at the time, but some of his Scottish colleagues will remember that I came here late at night to speak against the legislation being imposed on Scotland. Some hon. Members who are now in the Chamber will remember that.
It is sad that this is the last time that we shall have a chance to debate this issue. It is even more distressing that, in spite of all the so-called changes that have been made, the Government have not yet grappled with the simple fact that the principle of everybody paying something towards local government services is entirely sound and proper. Local government services, even more than central Government services, affect nearly everybody in the country.
I repeat the question that I asked some three years ago when we debated the matter: I save money but who pays for my savings? I shall save some £1,200 a year on the community charge or poll tax—it is much better to call it that—but people who live not half a mile from me in a one-bedroomed flat will pay £480 more than I pay. I live quite well, although modestly. I will be £1,200 better off and the people in that flat will be £480 worse off. There is neither logic nor justice in that, for one simple reason. Throughout our history all taxation has been based upon the ability to pay. Many of us argued in the long hours of the night and have argued within our party and in the country that ability to pay has to be the bedrock of any sensible or just tax. Many of us have said to our Government colleagues again and again, "Why not bring justice in this year? Why does it have to be next year?"
It is nonsense to talk about a safety net. What safety net is it, for God's sake, when some people have to pay for other people's so-called safety? What happens next year? Of course local government has to be paid for. The Opposition should not take too much heart from the discomfort that my party finds itself in, because nothing is for nothing. Somebody has to pay for local services. It is no good putting forward some grandiose scheme and saying that matters will be put right because Opposition Members and Conservative Members must be honest and say that local government requires billions of pounds.
I spent more than 20 years in local government and I can say with absolute conviction and honour that I warned my party and the Government that the poll tax would be a disaster. I was wrong because it has been a cataclysmic disaster and the by-election in Mid-Staffordshire showed that. There should be no pussy-footing about it: the poll tax was one of the great reasons that lost us that by-election. I warned the Government at the time that I gained from the poll tax and that I felt guilty about that. I live among people who have gained from the poll tax, but I have yet to find one person who says, "Goody, goody, I have gained." On the whole people in Britain do not say such things because they care about who pays.
At this very late stage I appeal to the Government to bear in mind that people do not think just of themselves. They ask the question that I asked some years ago when I said that I stood to gain £1,250. Of course it has narrowed and is now £1,200. I asked, "If I gain, who pays?" Of course everybody should pay something. I have always thought it hugely unjust that under the rating system 40 per cent. of the people paid and 60 per cent. of them voted for other people's charges. That system was hugely unfair, but it is nonsense to replace one unfair system with an even more unfair one.
I should be happy to debate the community charge benefit day after day and week after week until we could find a fair system. This is our last chance to debate fairness and I ask the Government not to tell people what they will do next year and the year after. They should admit that there has been a cock-up and should do something about it now. Why should people have to subsidise my poll tax? I know that the Government will say that I pay more income tax than some people, but that is because I have a higher income. It is nonsense to draw such an analogy. I stick by the principle of ability to pay and I am tired of people thinking that others should pay their tax. Everybody should pay something towards the service that he receives.


Local services should matter even to people who are on social security and they should have to pay something, but it is nonsense that I, in my home, should pay exactly the same as someone in a one-bedroomed flat. That people in Scottish crofts who used to pay £60 should now pay £480 is huge nonsense. To build a just and fair society we must be able to argue, with those who receive and with those who pay, that a tax is fair. My conscience and guts tell me —Mid-Staffordshire told us all—that people will not accept an injustice however long we argue that it is fair.
The time for change has come. For God's sake, let us not defend the indefensible; let us defend the people's right to a fair system of taxation.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Like most right hon. and hon. Members, I am very disappointed that the House is being asked to debate the merits of this important Bill under the guillotine. I was more than a little surprised to hear the Leader of the House complain about the number of new clauses and amendments tabled since the Committee stage, given that, on the Amendment Paper for debate this evening, the Government have no fewer than 15 new clauses and amendments, and that only two Opposition new clauses will get an airing by 11 pm. Perhaps other Members will now know exactly how hon. Members from Northern Ireland feel when, for instance, an education order is put through the House in a similar way—not under the pretext of the guillotine but by Order in Council.
Although I have friends on both sides of the House, I get a little tired of the yah-boo type of debate that seems to go on continually here. Referring to what the other party did when in power or what it may do when not in power probably provides good political ammunition, but such debates between the major parties can be instrumental in avoiding debate on the merits or otherwise of the subject in hand. I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who talked about those who were not on the Committee being represented. I represented the minor parties, and I can say that it was an excellent Committee stage. Arguments were forcefully put and some amendments were even accepted. However, other Members did not have a chance to serve on the Committee and they should have the chance to table amendments and have them debated at length. That is the weakness of the guillotine motion: it will cut off much debate on important subjects.
Even if Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker exercise great dexterity and care, many Back Benchers cannot speak in many of our debates. I notice that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of my party, is in his place. My party has always voted against guillotine motions on the basis that they are a negation of democracy, curtailing debate on matters that involve millions of citizens, many of whom feel cut off from the many benefits which they are told are flowing from the affluent society.
For instance, a constituent has written to me:
In 1980 the State Pension received by a married couple was worth 40 per cent. of full-time average earnings. By 1988 the same pension was worth only 31 per cent. full-time earnings. Yet there have been statements by Government Ministers that pensioners are increasingly better off.
Why cannot we debate that?

Ms. Short: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have seen that new clause 2 would enable us to discuss the failure to uprate pensions, but the Government have given us only one hour in which to deal with the poll tax, the uprating of pensions, the offsetting of costs of child care for people working or on supplementary benefit, the disqualification of people who have been unemployed for 26 weeks rather than six weeks and the issue of young, pregnant, homeless girls. That is what the guillotine is about.

Mr. Forsythe: That fully illustrates the dangers of the guillotine motion. Why should we not spend time on debate? It is what we are paid for. We are sent to the House to debate these matters on behalf of our constituents.

Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he and his Northern Ireland colleagues are placed in an invidious position because of the activities of the Conservatives in Northern Ireland? It appears to be their declared intention to offer the people of Northern Ireland the poll tax, so the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues face the prospect of all the rubbish that has been forced through for the rest of Britain, in the form of the poll tax, being inflicted subsequently on them without warning and without the opportunity for debate, either under primary poll tax legislation or under the legislation pushed through the House tonight.

Mr. Forsythe: The hon. Gentleman puts the case well. I should be interested to see what would happen if the Conservatives put the idea to the people of Northern Ireland. The people in the street gave their answers in a recent television programme, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that none of them supported the poll tax, and very few will support the Conservatives.
Without the guillotine we might have made a case about the community care grants and the social fund, and, in particular, about grants underspend. Underspend in Antrim last year was 44 per cent.; in Coleraine it was 54 per cent. We could have debated that, had it not been for the motion.
Hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland are exhorted by hon. Members on both sides of the House to talk—to talk and to continue talking. They say that we will reach a solution by talking. Yet, on this occasion, this honourable House, in the country that is the mother of Parliaments, is doing the opposite: i t is curtailing debate.
Finally, I am sure that we all remember what the guillotine did: it cut off the heads of people in France. There is a great danger that if we continue using guillotine motions we shall cut off the head of democracy. As we all know, without a head the body dies, and this honourable House should remember that.

Mr. Michael Jack: Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr. Speaker. I followed the logic of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and I was led to wonder whether he was advocating that at the beginning of each Session legislation which he and his hon. Friends felt was so important and interesting compared with anything else should have almost limitless parliamentary time. Time is a finite commodity and we shall always have to have a mechanism for allocating it to ensure proper and fair debate of the


huge range of subjects that the House must consider. The hon. Gentleman's line of argument did not reflect the fact that not long ago he and his hon. Friends benefited from time available to the House to discuss Northern Ireland orders at considerable length, and rightly so because matters about the Province are as important as those about any other area.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jack: I shall give way when I have developed my point a little further.
The hon. Gentleman would not have the luxury of that amount of time if the Government did not arrange their affairs to ensure adequate time to discuss the many items before us.
If time is abused—there was newspaper evidence to suggest that the Opposition intended to use tactics, including moving amendments and proposing ideas, which would take up a disproportionate amount of time—the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will suffer next time Northern Ireland business is to be debated because there will be insufficient time.

Mr. Forsythe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, even if we had talked all night about the Orders in Council, we could not have changed one word, comma or full stop. Unfortunately, he is wide off the mark.

Mr. Jack: I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. My point was not about the nature of the orders, but that time for their discussion was not truncated. That luxury, if I may describe it in that way, can be afforded to different sections of the House only if we all respect the fact that time is finite. Whenever the House abuses the privilege of time, we must ration the available time.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Northern Ireland Members do not have a right to debate in the House matters that directly affect Northern Ireland? Does he agree that if the business were properly arranged, legislation would apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and there would be no need to set aside time specifically for Northern Ireland matters?

Mr. Jack: I take entirely the hon. Gentleman's most reasonable point. Each of us who represents a different section of the United Kingdom wants time to debate our special needs. I should dearly love to have a debate about the problems of Lancashire and Fylde. That would be illuminating. It might well be that the way in which we debate Northern Ireland legislation could do with being sorted out, but that is for his hon. Friends to suggest.
My point is simply that if we have a limited amount of time, we must ration it. The guillotine motion was introduced because of strong evidence that there was to be an abuse of the time available for the discussion of the Social Security Bill. Newspaper reports suggested that the Opposition would table many amendments in an attempt to gain concessions from the Government. Sadly, when that happens we must allocate our time.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made an impassioned plea against the motion on the ground that the Bill was a piecemeal approach to social security legislation. He knows a great deal about social security

and housing and I respect his views and contributions to our debates, but he is a member of the "Ah Whoopee" tendency. In other words, we have a Bill dealing with pensions, technical social security matters and insulating grants—all important matters—and the "Ah Whoopee" tendency says, "Ah, here is an opportunity. We can put into the Bill all our pet theories and ideas on social security. Here is a vehicle for them." Instead of having the courage to put forward a comprehensive view of the Opposition's approach to social security, properly costed and argued out, the Opposition themselves adopt that piecemeal approach and seek to amend the Bill. They are guilty of their criticism of the Government.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has accused the Opposition of abusing the House because we have tabled some amendments. Does he feel that the Government are abusing the House more because they have tabled more amendments?

Mr. Jack: No. I was about to come to that point and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised it. The essence of the House of Commons lies in our flexible system of legislation, from which we benefit. In the Bill we have an opportunity to react quickly to the court judgment on the social fund and the Government have seized it. Rather than take additional parliamentary time to introduce a special Bill—which would reduce time to discuss Northern Ireland matters, for example—the Government have used this Bill as a vehicle to respond to the court judgment. They are to be congratulated on that.
I hope that the House will pass the timetable motion. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say about the operation of the social fund. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will address the problems put to me when I last visited my local social security office and discussed the operation of the social fund. I hope that he will tell us about the management changes in the local administration of the fund. There is considerable concern at local level about monitoring. If accountability at local level is to mean anything, social security managers will need powers under the social fund to run their budgets as they are requested. They must not be leaned on too much by regional or national officials. It is right that we should explore those matters when we debate the amendments on the social fund.

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman accused me of spending the Committee's time on this, which I did, but he may like to read the Committee reports before he makes his ill-informed comments. Because of the guillotine motion, it is hardly likely that many of us who would like to debate the social fund will have the opportunity to do so. Will he sign a letter with me to his right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, asking for a half-day debate on the social fund so that we all have time to put our constituency points? Will he accept that offer?

Mr. Jack: There is a far more effective way than signing letters. On Thursday at business questions the hon. Gentleman may wish to make his own point in his own particularly effective way.
I support the timetable motion because it is right that we should have a chance to debate many of the amendments—for example, new clause 1, which deals with the community charge. However, I wonder whether the Opposition will be enthusiastic about those amendments


when they realise what may come out during the debate. Will they be pleased to learn that in Lancashire the community charge could be £60 less than it is? Will they be pleased to learn that the reason is that the county council is topping up its coffers, refunding its overspending from last year and not making money available to local authority rest homes for elderly people? Yet those are Opposition concerns. Will they be so pleased to learn that at the county council budget meeting the Labour group imposed a guillotine on discussion when good Conservative ideas were yet to be heard? Those truths could come out in such a debate.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 20 July 1976, in supporting a guillotine, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said:
Let us accept that the democratic will in this country, and the instrument of it, is the ability to command a majority of votes in a House of Commons debate. That is what we shall do at the end of this debate, and we shall then see an end to the cant and humbug that we have heard from the Opposition"?—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1656-7.]
Why does the hon. Gentleman oppose guillotines now when he was in favour of them in government?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend's assiduous research overwhelms me, but he makes his point in a uniquely effective way.
New clause 26 is about residential care. I am delighted that we shall debate it because that will give us a chance to explore some of the hidden recesses of the income support regulations. I hope that the Government will make a positive announcement to deal with the points that come up in debate.
I should like my Front-Bench colleagues to address a problem that causes difficulty for some of my constituents living in residential and nursing homes. They would like my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider the income support regulations that deal with the way in which properties are handled. Two elderly people may have been living together as friends. One may go into a nursing or rest home and apply for income support but find that he or she is not able to get that help—even at its more generous levels—because the couple are deemed to have capital through the joint ownership of a house. It is impractical for those elderly people to sell half a house. My right hon. and hon. Friends may like to reflect on that important point and allude to the opportunity to discuss it in another place. That issue is important and has been flushed out into the open by the discussion on residential and nursing homes.
There is much important business in the Bill to discuss and the sooner we do so, the better.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The speech by the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) would have benefited if he had been in the Chamber more than five minutes before rising to speak. If he is so anxious about Members from various parts of the United Kingdom being able to represent their constituents, perhaps he and his colleagues will stop disrupting Scottish Question Time every month and give Scottish Members a chance to question Ministers.

Mr. Jack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has taken too much time already.
I suppose that, after the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), we should welcome another rebel to the Tory anti-poll tax standard. We must be charitable on these occasions, but we remember the hon. Gentleman's enthusiastic support for the poll tax. We in Scotland remember that, unlike the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), the hon. Gentleman enthusiastically imposed the poll tax on the Scottish people—the very tax that he now finds so unamenable when it is imposed on his own constituents.
The Leader of the House referred once again to deals that were supposedly done between the usual channels. We in the minority parties are irritated when we hear that guillotine motions are introduced because of some breakdown in the usual channels, of which we are not a part, like the majority of Members. That is no reason for restricting the ability of hon. Members to debate.

Mr. Grocott: For the record, I should like to make it clear that there has been no deal whatsoever on this guillotine motion.

Mr. Salmond: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's word. I was referring to what the Leader of the House implied in his opening speech.
I was wondering whether to concentrate on the brass neck or the arrogance of the Leader of the House in proposing the timetable motion—his brass neck in complaining about the number of Opposition amendments, when the Government themselves have tabled no fewer than 70 new clauses and amendments, or the arrogance which makes him think that the tabling of amendments is a sign of improper opposition. It is not up to the Leader of the House to decide which amendments are proper and which are improper. If an amendment is in order, it can be put on the amendment paper; if it is selected for debate, it can be debated; and if the House so decides, it can pass the amendment. It is not the role of the Leader of the House to decide that, because a number of amendments have inconvenienced his business timetable, that is a justification for imposing a guillotine.
I should like to consider specifically the limitation of the debate on new clause 1 and the other new clauses and amendments that will be debated between 11 pm and 12 midnight. One hour is by no means adequate to debate even new clause 1, never mind the other important amendments. The increase in capital limits in the Budget has raised substantial expectations among old-age pensioners who believe that they now will be entitled to a poll tax rebate.
It would have been extremely helpful for hon. Members to have a prolonged debate on those issues. It would then be realised that, because the taper and the income assumed have not been changed, the income and interest assumed will bite into the rebate level well before they get anywhere near £16,000 of savings. It will be a great disappointment to many old people to learn that, even on tiny incomes and with modest capital, they will qualify for the tiniest of rebates, if any at all.
Last Friday, I appeared on television with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I saw his expression of surprise when I detailed how some of his own constituents would qualify for the tiniest of rebates because they had £12,500 in capital. All Tory Members


would have benefited from a prolonged debate on this subject so that they could realise how limited that concession is.
Several times during the past week we have been denied the opportunity to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland fully explain to the House last week's remarkable events —remarkable in the sense that he was exposed as marginal to Cabinet decision making; as so dim-witted that last Tuesday he did not even refer in Cabinet to the position in Scotland; as so insensitive that he described the immediate outcry as "bogus"; and as so craven that within 48 hours he had done a political somersault to save his political skin. The right hon. and learned Gentleman refused to make a statement. He would not even personally answer our questions during Scottish Question Time this afternoon. The timetable motion makes it unlikely that he will contribute to the debate this evening.
The timetable motion is not a convenience for the House of Commons. It is a convenience for the Government, so that they can get through some more sloppy legislation as part of the shoddy programme of this shabby Administration.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Every hon. Member knows that there have been occasions when protests about the guillotine have been tinged with at least a margin of synthetic ire, but no one could possibly say that that applied here. By any standards, the Government's move to impose a panic guillotine is an abuse.
That is the view not just of many of my colleagues who have argued so cogently against the guillotine, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in his eloquent and witty speech. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for his moving, brave and, as we always expect, principled argument against the practice of guillotines in general. I am sure that the House listened also to the powerful pleas of other Conservative Members.
They are not here to hear me say this, but it is not often that I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who is not often a rebel in our cause, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). It is an outrage that matters as important and contentious as the poll tax and residential and nursing home charges should be allocated no more than a handful of minutes for discussion.
We have three main objections to the guillotine. First, it is being imposed before the House has even embarked on the Report stage. By definition, therefore, there can be no evidence of filibustering or time-wasting by the Opposition, even to the slightest degree, in Committee or at this stage. It is a totally unprovoked curb on free speech.
Secondly, it is the sheerest hypocrisy for the Government to impose a guillotine when they are responsible for importing five new, highly contentious issues into the Report stage, all of which are extraneous to the content of the Bill but which, by convention, must be debated first as Government new clauses.
The gap between income support and residential nursing home charges features in the Bill only because the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Secretary of

State for Health adopted such an offensively insensitive posture over the National Health Service and Community Care Bill that it provoked a rebellion on their own Benches, which caused them, despite their 100 majority, to lose the vote. That is the only reason why we have returned to the issue tonight.
The social fund features in the Bill only because the Government acted illegally in their advice to local social security officers, which caused them to be overruled in the High Court. Child maintenance features in the Bill only because the Prime Minister, belatedly and following an Opposition initiative which I launched three weeks before her—[Interruption.] That is a matter of fact which Conservative Members can check. She decided that the Government had at least to be seen to be doing something. The Department of Social Security was caught on the hop. Nothing had been drafted or, one suspects, had even been thought about at that point. Hence, nothing appeared in the Bill about that on Second Reading. It has taken until now to produce what is merely a holding clause on that matter.
The retrospective effect of section 165A of the principal Act features in the Bill only because of the Government's incompetence in believing that they had dealt with the matter in the 1985 Act, when it is clear now that they had not. The limited price indexing of pensions in the payment under occupational pension schemes features in the Bill only because the Government miscalulated the matter on Second Reading. They have now been forced to rethink their position in the light of the indefensibly feeble posture that they adopted on Second Reading.
On every one of those issues, the Government alone are responsible, having tabled five new clauses at the last moment, four of them, almost unprecedentedly, in the last 24 hours. For the Government now to impose the guillotine is simply to pre-empt the lion's share of debating time for their new material, while telescoping into what I can only describe as relative insignificance the time available for discussion of the issues in the Bill.
The third major reason why we object to the guillotine —my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) dealt strongly with this—is that it is designed to prevent debate on the whole range of issues on which we have tabled new clauses. The Government have a disreputable record on social security and our new clauses focused on each main element of that record. I refer to the break in the pension uprating link with earnings; the refusal to assist lone parents at work with child minding expenses; the draconian extension of unemployment from six to 26 weeks; the refusal to give compensation to radiation-exposed ex-service men; the iniquitous "actively seeking work" criterion; and the freezing of child benefit for the last three years.
We appreciate the Government's embarrassment about, and anxiety to avoid debate on, those matters. But to use the procedural device of the guillotine to restrict, if not eliminate, debate on them is, frankly, contemptible.
It is impossible, if the guillotine is accepted tonight, for there to be any debate on six of the first seven Opposition new clauses. In addition, it will leave next week a maximum of six and a half hours for debate on 13 remaining Opposition new clauses, no fewer than 37 new amendments to the Bill just tabled by the Government, 18 amendments tabled by the Opposition and the Third Reading.


To suggest that all that can be completed, or even reasonably broached, in six and a half hours is farcical. If there is any decency and respectability to be preserved in the principle of proper debate in the House, hon. Members will reject the guillotine.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Before dealing with the meat of the motion, I wish—I hope that I shall not embarrass him in doing so—to add my congratulations to those of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on a speech of considerable passion and vigour. I know his consistency in this matter and make no complaint about the assault that he launched on us for tabling the guillotine.
I know, too, my hon. Friend's feeling about the weight of legislation that is put on the House and our need to get it through. As a Minister, I have been guaranteed a Bill on social security in every Session of Parliament, so far at least, and there are evenings when I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend when he talks about that weight of legislation. The House as a whole—perhaps the main responsibility rests on the Government—should be concerned about that weight of legislation, about the way in which it is handled and about some of the constraints on us.
In my 24 years in the House, I have listened to innumerable debates on timetable motions. One has an awful sense of seeing the whole thing through again from one side of the House or the other and listening to the same speeches being recycled. All Governments have had recourse to this weapon, with the possible exception of the 1945–50 Government. But I wonder how many pages of legislation were passed in that Parliament compared with the weight of legislation that we have today.
The hon. Members for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) and for Oldham, West—although they gave different figures about the tabling of Government new clauses—were mistaken. It is not true to say, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin said, that one new clause was tabled early on Monday, two early on Tuesday and another on Tuesday afternoon. The first new clause was tabled last Friday, the bulk were tabled on Monday and only one, on residential care, was tabled on Tuesday. That mirrors well the Opposition's performance in tabling new clauses and amendments right up to the last minute, so I see no reason to apologise for the timetable.
None of the issues contained in our new clauses could conceivably have been included in the Bill. They were all matters that we were still considering from a policy point of view. We were taking legal advice, were concerned with tidying-up procedures or, in the case of occupational pensions, were still in consultation with the industry about the detail. I believe that it was right to go ahead with the publication of the Bill as it was and to produce the clauses and amendments once we had carried out the legal and other consultations that we were having.
The timetable motion presents the House with three definite advantages. First, as it will be acknowledged, there were discussions between the usual channels about the time needed to take the Bill through the House. There was to be one and a half days, in round terms, to be agreed between the usual channels. We shall now have more time available as a result of the timetable motion than we would

have had if we had interpreted that allocation of one and a half days in the way that it is normally understood in the House.
Nobody suggested, until the hon. Member for Oldham, West was rash enough first to table his new clauses and then to issue his press release, that the House would anticipate a sitting of 23 hours on this sitting day.

Mr. Meacher: indicated dissent.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman was quoted in the press. No doubt he will take the appropriate opportunity to complain to those who put that out in his name.

Mr. Meacher: I shall say only that I never said any such thing. As is well known, one does not necessarily believe what one reads in the press. I said that we had an opportunity for open-ended debate. My hon. Friends and I had no intention to filibuster. But we insist, in view of the Government's record, which has been appalling over the past 10 years, that there should be adequate time, and an open-ended debate on the first day would give far more time than the Government are allotting under the guillotine.

Mr. Scott: It is rather strange that both the Daily Mirror and the Morning Star carried such similar coverage of the hon. Gentleman's intentions.
We shall have more time than we would have had, had there been a normal interpretation of the understanding to which I referred. Most of the time will be at the disposal of the Opposition. I think that we shall be able to get through the Government's new clauses very rapidly.
The second point is the overwhelming one that our discussions will be conducted at a civilised hour. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that we are not at our best in the wee small hours of the morning. We shall be able to discuss these matters in what, in a sense, is prime time, and I think that the House will do better in scrutinising what the Government have put forward. Indeed, we intend to subject the Opposition's new clauses and amendments to scrutiny.
Thirdly, we shall be able to organise our time in an orderly and predictable way, with as much flexibility as is possible within the broad terms of the Opposition's right to exercise their judgment on these matters.

Ms. Short: In effect, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we may not take as much time as we need to discuss the Government's social security changes to which we object. The Government are telling us when we must finish and go to bed. They are simply unwilling to be inconvenienced by allowing us to use the platform of this House to put before the nation what we think is wrong with their social security policy.

Mr. Scott: I do not want to embarrass the hon. Lady, but I have to say that she knows that, week by week, in Committee, we had considerable discussions on whether we should sit not only in the mornings but in the afternoons and even, if necessary, in the evenings. [Interruption.] Precisely. I am about to come to that point.
It seems to me that Opposition Members are using a new tactic-not to say a great deal in Committee but to seek to exploit the time of the House on Report in a way that has not been the tradition. To show the tremendous


change of attitude that is reflected in the Opposition's behaviour in this case, I shall come later to what has happened in the case of previous social security legislation.

Ms. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Scott: No.

Ms. Short: rose—

Mr. Scott: I do not have to give way.

Ms. Short: rose—

Mr. Scott: Very well, if the hon. Lady is upset.

Ms. Short: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Opposition put forward a timetable for the Committee and that the Government adhered to it. We did not play games or filibuster, but did the Committee business seriously. Indeed, as a result of our action, the Government made some changes. We take a different view about what properly comes to the Floor of the House of Commons and about our ability to make a case before the nation. In the Bill there are broader issues of social security policy —matters that are quite in order—that we feel should be brought to the Floor of the House and put to the nation. We make no apology for the entirely proper strategy that we have adopted, both in Committee and in the House.

Mr. Scott: I have little time to respond to the hon. Lady's point, so I shall say simply that I disagree with her.
As ever, I listened with great respect to the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). We all know his record on this front. He complained about the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. Acting as I did in Committee, I shall make sure that I am a conduit for messages to my right hon. and learned Friend. I shall see that the points that have been made today are brought to his attention. However, I have a slight suspicion that the anxiety of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent to take part in these debates is rather like a criminal's return to the scene of his crime —recorded not so much in the pages of the Police Gazette as in the "Guinness Book of Records", because of the fame that he enjoys for that particular day when he was Leader of the House.
In the last couple of minutes, I want to deal with the point on which the right hon. Gentleman asked me to reflect. I believe that Governments should be very sparing in their use of timetable motions. Certainly, I agreed to the introduction of this motion with great regret. The House has filled up slightly, but during this afternoon's debate there was hardly any sign of great passion among Opposition Members. I tried to average out the numbers present at various stages during the debate, and I think that the average came to 13. That figure may be of particular interest to the two Ulster Unionist Members from County Antrim constituencies who are in the Chamber, because of the history of their part of the United Kingdom, but the number present does not demonstrate any great passion on the part of the Labour party to oppose the motion. Indeed, it may very well be that a considerable number of Labour Members were relieved at our decision to introduce a timetable motion.
Once more, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) for his research. The

hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) waxed eloquent in his opposition to the timetable motion. These are the hon. Gentleman's words on an earlier occasion:
The principle of a timetable motion is highly commendable as a general rule. It is not cutting down debate; it is making it more meaningful, cutting out aeons of waffle that fill Hansard, page after page after page. Many speeches which take 45 minutes could be cut to 10 or 15 minutes and still contain the germ of what was intended."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1729.]
That is what I am offering the House tonight.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 204.

Division No. 143]
[6.55 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cope, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert
Couchman, James


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cran, James


Amess, David
Critchley, Julian


Amos, Alan
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, David
Dover, Den


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dykes, Hugh


Baldry, Tony
Eggar, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Emery, Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fallon, Michael


Benyon, W.
Favell, Tony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fookes, Dame Janet


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forman, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Franks, Cecil


Bowis, John
Freeman, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fry, Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, George


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Budgen, Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burns, Simon
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burt, Alistair
Gorst, John


Butcher, John
Gow, Ian


Butler, Chris
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Butterfill, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gregory, Conal


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Cash, William
Grist, Ian


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Ground, Patrick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grylls, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hannam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')






Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mills, Iain


Harris, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hawkins, Christopher
Mitchell, Sir David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moate, Roger


Hayward, Robert
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moss, Malcolm


Hind, Kenneth
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Mudd, David


Holt, Richard
Neale, Gerrard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Needham, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Neubert, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Norris, Steve


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hunter, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Page, Richard


Irvine, Michael
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Jack, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Jackson, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Janman, Tim
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Pawsey, James


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Powell, William (Corby)


Key, Robert
Price, Sir David


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Raffan, Keith


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kirkhope, Timothy
Redwood, John


Knapman, Roger
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lang, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shelton, Sir William


McCrindle, Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Speed, Keith


Madel, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malins, Humfrey
Squire, Robin


Mans, Keith
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maples, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Lewis


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stokes, Sir John


Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Summerson, Hugo





Tapsell, Sir Peter
Ward, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watts, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wheeler, Sir John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whitney, Ray


Thorne, Neil
Widdecombe, Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Tredinnick, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trippier, David
Wood, Timothy


Trotter, Neville
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Viggers, Peter



Waddington, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Walden, George
Mr. Tony Durant.


Waller, Gary





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dewar, Donald


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Frank


Alton, David
Douglas, Dick


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Hilary
Eadie, Alexander


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Ashton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fearn, Ronald


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Battle, John
Flannery, Martin


Beckett, Margaret
Flynn, Paul


Beggs, Roy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beith, A. J.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fraser, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Fyfe, Maria


Blair, Tony
Galloway, George


Boyes, Roland
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Gordon, Mildred


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gould, Bryan


Buckley, George J.
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Callaghan, Jim
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Haynes, Frank


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cartwright, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoey, Ms kate (Vauxhall)


Clay, Bob
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clelland, David
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Geraint


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cryer, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Janner, Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Charles


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfedder, James


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'L)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil






Kirkwood, Archy
Radice, Giles


Lamond, James
Randall, Stuart


Leighton, Ron
Redmond, Martin


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lewis, Terry
Richardson, Jo


Livingstone, Ken
Robertson, George


Livsey, Richard
Rooker, Jeff


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Loyden, Eddie
Salmond, Alex


McAllion, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum A.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKelvey, William
Short, Clare


Maclennan, Robert
Sillars, Jim


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Maginnis, Ken
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Gavin


Maxton, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Meacher, Michael
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Meale, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'L &amp; Bute)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wall, Pat


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wallace, James


Morgan, Rhodri
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morley, Elliot
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Nellist, Dave
Wilson, Brian


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wray, Jimmy


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pendry, Tom



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. John McFall.


Quin, Ms Joyce

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved.
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the following Table:—


TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
New Clauses 19, 21 and 22
9:00 p.m.



New Clauses 23 and 26
11:00 p.m.



New Clauses 1 to 6
Midnight



New Clauses 7 and 8
1:00 a.m.


Second day
Remaining New Clauses
7:00 p.m.



Amendments to Clauses; New
9:00 p.m.



Schedules and amendments to Schedules




Third Reading
10:00 p.m.

(2) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Order of proceedings

2. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Dilatory Motions

3. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted day

4.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and on the first allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of three hours.

Private business

5. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

6.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, other than the proceedings specified in sub-paragraph (2) below, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which the Table in paragraph 1 above specifies are to be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the second allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put (so far as they are applicable and notwithstanding any Order of the House relating to the order in which the Bill is to be considered) the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question that the new Schedule (amendment 22) be added to the Bill;
(d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(5) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

7.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

8. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

10. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Social Security Bill.

Orders of the Day — Social Security Bill

IST ALLOTTED DAY

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered

New clause 19

ANNUAL INCREASE OF CERTAIN OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS

'.—(1) The following section shall be inserted alter section 58 of the Pensions Act—

"Annual increase in rate of pension, other than guaranteed minimum pension or money purchase benefit.

58A.—(1) This section applies in relation to any occupational pension scheme—

(a) which is neither a public service pension scheme nor a money purchase scheme; and
(b) whose rules do not require the annual rate of every pension which commences or has commenced under the scheme to be increased each year by at least an amount equal to the appropriate percentage of that rate.

(2) On and after the appointed day, Schedule 3A to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of providing annual increases in the annual rate of pensions under schemes to which this section applies.

(3) In this section—
annual rate", in relation to a pension, means the annual rate of the pension, as previously increased under the rules of the scheme or under Schedule 3A to this Act;
the appointed day" means the day on which this section and Schedule 3A to this Act come into force;
the appropriate percentage", in relation to an increase in the annual rate of a pension, means the percentage specified in the last revaluation order made before the increase is to take effect as the revaluation percentage for the last revaluation period of twelve months;
money purchase scheme" means a pension scheme under which all the benefits that may be provided are money purchase benefits;
pension" does not include—

(a) a guaranteed minimum pension or any increase in such a pension under section 37A above; or
(b) any money purchase benefit;

revaluation order", "revaluation percentage" and "revaluation period" shall be construed in accordance with section 52A above.
(2) After Schedule 3 to the Pensions Act there shall be inserted the Schedule set out in Schedule [Insertion of Schedule 3A to the Pensions Act] to this Act.'.—[Mr. Newton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 22 and 23.

Mr. Newton: I hasten to assure the House that I shall not read the contents of the new clause, still less the two amendments linked with it. I shall seek to keep my speech brief, in line with anxieties expressed by the Opposition about whether they will have sufficient time to develop their arguments on these undoubtedly important issues.


The House will recall the wide welcome that was given to an important part of our aim in the Bill—to give members of occupational pension schemes greater protection in various ways. Most of the proposals flowed from an important and valuable report by the Occupational Pensions Board and I wish to renew my thanks to the board for that. There were proposals to reduce the scale of self-investment in pension schemes to try to reduce the risk that members of schemes might otherwise face—a double risk to their jobs and to their pensions; and proposals for improved protection when a pension scheme was wound up, particularly to reduce the scope for such schemes being exploited by those who might be described as asset strippers. There was a range of measures designed to improve the advice, information and help available to members of occupational pension schemes with the creation of a pensions ombudsman, the strengthening of some of the aspects of the work of the occupational pensions advisory service and the creation of a tracing service to help people who might have pension rights in a wide variety of schemes to establish precisely where and what they are.
In general, those aims have been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, by many people throughout the country and by the industry.
Some reservations have been expressed about some aspects of our proposals on self-investment and we have modified those to meet what we thought were legitimate criticisms. We shall mount a survey of the scale and extent of self-investment before deciding precisely how to use the regulation-making powers in the Bill. That has also been thought to be sensible.
The second main area of our proposals about which reservations were expressed, while the general principle was welcomed, was the proposal to require pension increases according to certain formulations when a scheme winds up. Some people—certainly the official Opposition —have said that I should have gone further and placed a similar requirement for pension increases on schemes that continued as well as those that were wound up. Other people have pointed out the possible consequences for some businesses of the original winding-up provisions in the Bill. They said that in certain cases at least the employer would have faced additional contingent liabilities for which they had had no opportunity to plan, and if they had to meet those requirements the viability of their businesses might be put at risk in certain circumstances.
Having listened carefully to those arguments, having had a number of discussions with representatives of the industry, and having listened carefully to what Opposition Members said in Committee and to suggestions made in those quarters and the industry that there are other ways to achieve the basic objective, we came to the conclusion that we could strike a better balance between the different aims of pension policy.
7.15 pm
The principal element of that conclusion is that it is better to make general requirements about the payment of pension increases after members retire if the requirements that we are now proposing apply to schemes that continue as well as to schemes that wind up.
The new requirements are set out in new clause 19 and the associated amendments. We will avoid forcing employers to put new money into schemes to fund commitments to past service. That was the issue in our original proposals which caused so much unease.
The new clause makes two requirements. First, schemes will have to pay annual increases to members for pension rights which they build up after an appointed day. For those rights derived from future service, members should be guaranteed increases in line with the retail prices index up to a maximum of 5 per cent. a year. There is nothing in that proposal to prevent schemes from continuing to pay more than that or starting to if they wish to do so, and if they feel able to.
That new provision for improving rights for future service is an important step forward which will give members of private sector schemes, in particular, increasing security in the future. It has been widely welcomed in the industry, by the press and in other quarters as a sensible step forward. However, on its own it does not go far enough, because it does nothing for existing pensioners who have rights derived from past service.
The latest statistics from the Government Actuary suggest that about 80 per cent.—four fifths—of members of schemes are getting annual increases, mostly in the 3 to 5 per cent. range. That is obviously welcome, but it follows that some 20 per cent. —one fifth—are getting no increase. Frankly, that is not good enough, especially when the strong investment performance of pension funds in recent years has continued to yield large surpluses which could be used by many schemes to provide some measure of indexation.
Therefore, we are proposing a second requirement in the new clause and associated amendments so that from an appointed day schemes will have to use surpluses to pay increases to members for pension rights which they have already built up. That should include pensions that are now in payment. The guaranteed rate of increase that each scheme will have to pay will depend on the surplus in the pension fund, but the target rate of increase for schemes will be the rise in RPI up to 5 per cent. a year, with the rate to be guaranteed by each scheme, depending on the amount of its surplus. In other words, schemes that have surpluses will have to use them to guarantee increases at target level before taking a contribution holiday or a refund. Schemes will be able to continue or to start to do more than the basic requirement if they wish.
I expect that the appointed days in both cases—both in the first requirement and the latter requirement—for the use of surpluses will be no later than the end of December 1991, although the date that could turn out to be convenient and sensible is 1 January 1992.
I have asked my officials to begin discussions with the actuarial profession to determine the appropriate methods and assumptions for calculating the size of scheme surpluses and the guaranteed increases that would flow from them.
The proposal offers a sensible balanced and affordable measure of security to existing pensioners. For many in the private sector it will turn existing discretionary increases into rights. That can only be an advance in making such schemes even more attractive to their members.
The new requirement will cover benefits paid to widows, widowers and dependants. It will apply to all retirement benefits paid by occupatonal pension schemes


with two exceptions. The first is guaranteed minimum pensions and any increase in these pensions under section 37A of the Pensions Act. Those benefits are already protected through the contracting-out arrangements of the state earnings-related pension scheme.
The second exception is money-purchased benefits, including personal pensions schemes to which I believe rather different considerations apply. Their members aready have an opportunity to use the proceeds of their investments to choose a pension that increases after retirement—or not, as the case may be. No doubt one could argue about whether that choice ought to be restricted, but, in my view, this is not the time to attempt to make any decision on that. The question of pension increases in those schemes would be best resolved as part of the review of the terms for contracting out of SERPS that is due to start next year.
Under the new proposals, the position when a scheme winds up will match the general requirements for pension increases. In the event of a scheme winding up it will be a liability on the employer to provide increases at the prices up to 5 per cent. rate in respect of pensions accruing after the appointed day. For pension rights based on service before then, increases will depend on the extent of increases already guaranteed as a result of the new requirements and any additional surplus emerging when the scheme winds up.
The new provisions will give members of occupational pension schemes growing certainty about the rate of pension increases that they will receive after retirement. Increases will be guaranteed for future service in line with prices up to 5 per cent. a year. For benefits already accrued—including pensions in payment—guaranteed increases will become the first call on scheme surpluses.
It is well understood that the Government have placed considerable weight on people's own occupational and personal pension provision—building over and above the basic state retirement pension—as a central element in placing retirement provision on a secure foundation for the future. The gathering success of that policy is clear. As the House knows, by 1987, the average value of occupational pensions received by people over pension age had increased by 77 per cent. in real terms since 1979 when we took office. That means that for many pensioners their occupational pension is now their most important source of income. For pensioners receiving an occupational pension the average amount received in 1987 was £44·80, and that was nearly three years ago.
The increasing importance of occupational pensions underlines the need to ensure that we have the right framework for the schemes. We have introduced a long series of measures to achieve just that. In 1985, we introduced the protection for early leavers so that pensions could no longer be frozen. We introduced the right to a transfer value when leaving the scheme and we passed legislation to enable scheme members to be provided with information about their scheme as of right. In 1986, we brought to an end compulsory membership of occupational schemes and extended the choice available to individuals planning for their retirement to include personal pensions, which have been an outstanding success.
The Bill provides increased protection for scheme members. In future, early leavers will have all their preserved benefits revalued by prices up to 5 per cent. a year—and not just those rights built up since 1985. For members needing help and advice we are ensuring that the

occupational pensions advisory service is put on a firm financial basis. We shall also put in place the pension ombudsman to give members a quicker, more effective means of seeking redress of grievances and we shall expand the range of tracing services that we already provide to cover occupational pension schemes. We are limiting the scope for self-investment. The requirement in the new clause for schemes to provide pension increases is a further major step forward and may prove in time to be among the most important that we have taken.
I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted our argument that a pensions scheme that does not guarantee reasonable increases in pensions is a bad scheme. But it is quite clear that the proposal to limit increases to only 5 per cent. a year still gives inadequate protection against inflation.

Mr. Tim Smith: indicated dissent.

Mr. Meacher: I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can shake his head, given that inflation is now rising towards 9 per cent., but I do not wish to provoke him.
We believe that it is both practical and desirable to give a higher level of protection—a point which I emphasised strongly on Second Reading. Frankly, the 5 per cent. limit is not high enough. The average employee can now expect to live 20 or more years into retirement and we need a measure that provides adequate protection over that sort of lifespan. It is a relevant consideration for the House that if someone who retired 20 years ago had had only increases on the basis that the Government now propose, his benefit would be worth only about 40 per cent. of its initial value. With inflation rapidly rising towards double figures, a measure that purports to protect the real value of members' benefits but allows them to fall to less than half their initial value is—not to put too fine a point on it—a fraud.
If anything, pensioners' needs increase as they get older and the Government's proposal is a recipe for continued poverty for the very old. We are therefore opposed to the 5 per cent. limit. We consider that schemes should he required to increase pensions fully in line with the retail prices index.
The argument that has always been advanced against such a measure is that it is too costly. It has been suggested that it would be too expensive to legislate for larger increases and that to do so would frighten employers away from providing pension schemes. We reject that argument, and I want to say why. Employers provide pension schemes because it is in their interests to do so. They need to attract and retain staff. They also need their staff to retire as they get older. It is therefore in their interests to provide attractive schemes with a competitive level of benefit.
The big increases in the current cost of providing a pension scheme arise when a scheme that makes no provision—the Secretary of State said that about one fifth of schemes made no provision—

Mr. Newton: I would not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman. My statistics related to the members of the scheme. Rather more than one fifth of schemes would be involved, I think, because, on the whole, the large schemes have been making the increases.

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman simply strengthens my point. The big increases in the current costs of providing a pension scheme arise when a scheme that makes no provision for increases is improved to provide RPI increases limited to 5 per cent. It has been estimated that that could increase the cost of a scheme by up to one half. But most schemes do not start from that position; we all agree about that. Most employees belong to schemes that already guarantee or make provision for increases at or near the Government's proposals—3 to 5 per cent. is probably the norm. The relevant point is that the move from limited increases to full RPI increases without a limit is much less significant than the move from no increases at all. That is because in most cases the assumptions made by the actuaries that determine the contributions to be paid are in practice similar whether or not there is a limit. The key factor is the difference between the assumptions made about future investment returns and assumptions about future pension increases.
I am the first to recognise that these are complex matters, but I am told that, although there are probably as many different sets of assumptions as there are actuaries, broadly speaking, the difference will be similar for schemes that guarantee increases, whether or not there is a 5 per cent. limit. Opposition Members therefore consider it reasonable to require schemes to provide full inflation-proofing for future benefits, for the reasons that I have given. In practice, many schemes, particularly the larger schemes, are already providing increases in line with what we propose. We are the first to recognise that. The current cost for those schemes will be even smaller; they may even be nil.
As to past service benefits accrued before the appointed day, they should also be increased in line with the RPI, as far as surpluses permit. For as long as a scheme has a surplus, there is no reason why it should provide for employer refunds or contribution holidays before it is used to protect the real value of members' benefits. The money was paid into the scheme to provide pensions as part of the employee's contract of employment, so why should any of that money benefit the employer before being used to increase pensions in line with the RPI? I hope that that argument will commend itself for general support.
7.30 pm
The cost of our proposals should not prove to be a deterrent against good pension provision. Over the past five years, the pension schemes to which most people belong already adopt the practice that we propose. Watson's index of pension increases—Watson is a firm of actuarial consultants which I gather is quite famous—shows that, allowing for a lag in implementation, average pension increases have more or less kept in line with the RPI. Clearly there is no practical objection to making that practice a legal requirement of all schemes.
The only opposition is likely to come from a minority of employers who want to take money away from their pensioners and use it for their own purposes. We reject entirely the suggestion that surpluses are in any sense the employer's money. Each year, the employer paid in an amount that was considered to be right at the time, and therefore it is a perversion of the language to refer to any surplus as overpaid employer contributions.
This matter is not of a highly party political nature, so it should not be considered in a partisan way. I hope that the Government will see the sense in our argument. I agree

entirely with the Secretary of State's concluding comment concerning the importance of these matters. They are far more significant than many of the issues that cause so much commotion in the House.

Mr. Tim Smith: If a surplus is not an employer's overpaid contribution, what is a deficit? Who would the hon. Gentleman expect to make up any deficit?

Mr. Meacher: Deficits do not exist except in a minority of cases. I cannot off the top of my head say what proportion of all schemes are in deficit. At present, total surpluses are estimated as being in excess of £50 billion, so it is difficult to believe that any schemes are in deficit. If there are, they must have evaded the requirement that pensions legislation of successive Governments placed on schemes to ensure an adequacy of contributions to meet the retirement pensions that they must honour.
Deficits are not the real problem. The important questions are who owns the surplus, how should it be used, and who has first rights to it. Our view is that unquestionably the first rights to any surplus are with employees now in retirement. I repeat that as long as a surplus exists, we do not believe it right that there should be employer refunds or contribution holidays.
The basis of the Bill is that members are entitled to adequate protection against inflation, and that that priority should have first call on any surplus. There is no dispute between us on that, so I hope that I carry Conservative Members with me in arguing that it makes no sense to impose a 5 per cent. limit while allowing employers to benefit from any surplus.
The Secretary of State's announcement is something of an about-face, but I do not want to embarrass him—and I am glad to see him turning in our direction. Nevertheless, a large number of practical points remain to be clarified before a final judgment can be made. We are keen that new schemes should be obliged to pay increases along with the existing obligation to revalue deferred benefits, and there is a responsibility on the Government to ensure that schemes are adequately funded for that purpose. If employers are to commit themselves to paying benefits that meet legislative standards, members are entitled to more reassurance that adequate financial provision is being made.
At present, pension scheme members can look only to the disclosure requirements, which entitle them to some important but essentially limited information about benefit provisions. That approach does not provide scheme members with the kind of yardstick by which they can readily judge whether a scheme has enough money to meet its liabilities and whether contributions are sufficiently high.
The Secretary of State should take power to lay down standards on funding rates that schemes must meet. That has not been done up to now. Such a provision takes on particular significance as this country enters a recession and the risk of deficits mentioned by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) arises.
The Secretary of State will have powers to lay down the basis on which any surplus is calculated. That raises two questions. The first is whether there will be a surplus, and hence whether increases must be paid on past benefits. The second is whether there is sufficient surplus to entitle the employer to take a contribution holiday. In either case, it would be wrong if employers were able to manipulate the


requirements of the legislation simply by making a choice between extreme financial assumptions or unreasonable valuation methods. We do not believe that it would be reasonable to leave that decision simply to actuarial judgment—just as actuaries are not left to their own devices in undertaking statutory valuations in life assurance companies. We envisage a period of consultation on the rules to be laid down. Ultimately, the Government will have a duty to ensure that the system that they propose cannot be used against the interests of scheme members.
We welcome what we view as a Government U-turn as a consequence of the pressure that we put on them on Second Reading and in Committee. However, we remain critical of the Government's half-measures, which still fall far short of what is properly required. We shall continue to press our case until our proposals are fully implemented.

Mr. Timothy Wood: I welcome the new clause and the amendments. Before going further, I must declare that I am a parliamentary adviser to BZW Investment Management, though it has not pursued the Bill with me. However, there are within my constituency a number of firms engaged in the provision of pension funds, some of which have contacted me about the Bill.
It is important that a fair balance is struck between the possible liabilities placed on the employer and the benefits to be enjoyed by the employee or retired employee. The new clauses and amendments are an important step in the right direction. I agree with both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that, when there is a significant increase in inflation, the first call on any pension fund surplus should be to the benefit of employees or retired former employees.
However, one must also be wary of discouraging employers from providing pension funds by presenting a vision of future liabilities. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Oldham, West to say that pension funds are currently in surplus, but I recall a period eight or 10 years ago when that was far from true. At that time, unfortunately, companies were not making satisfactory profits and producing for the pension funds that had invested in them sufficient income to provide adequate pensions, which caused serious problems to develop.
One cannot assume that the current success in terms of profitable companies generating the necessary funds for pensions will continue, especially if there is a change of Government. That is one of the difficulties that actuaries face—they cannot predict with absolute accuracy who will be in power in the next 20, 30 or 40 years. We should like it to be the present Government, which would give actuaries more confidence in the future.
I welcome the new clause and the protection that has been provided to ensure that surpluses are used to benefit the pensioner who has first call on the pension fund. It also recognises that placing excessive contingent liabilities on employers could cause some employers to decide not to provide pension funds on behalf of their employees. That would be totally unfortunate, so I welcome the steps that have been taken today.

Mr. Tim Smith: New clause 19 constitutes a major step forward for millions of occupational pensioners in the United Kingdom and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing it. It represents a

sensible balance between the interests of the employers and of employees. What my right hon. Friend has done is the right way to proceed in legislation affecting occupational pension schemes. He gave us some figures on the present position.
Of course, occupational pension schemes are voluntary arrangements. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that employers provide occupational pensions for their own benefit because they want to attract or retain staff. I recognise that, but such schemes are voluntary arrangements, so it is sensible for legislation to reflect what is already best practice. Practice has improved over the years and the occupational pension schemes have changed out of all recognition in the past 20 years. By the new provisions, my right hon. Friend is reflecting what is already best practice and telling occupational pension schemes to bring themselves up to best practice.
If we were to go as far as the hon. Member for Oldham, West wants, we would be in a different position, because we have to consider the trade-off between improving existing schemes, as the new clause will do, and extending the coverage of occupational pension schemes. Although millions of employees are members of occupational pension schemes, many employees are not. In an ideal world, everyone who had a job would belong to an occupational pension scheme, but if we were to impose upon occupational pension schemes the open-ended commitment that the hon. Gentleman has in mind it would be very difficult because we do not know what future rates of inflation are likely to be.
It would be difficult to fund the schemes and would act as a major deterrent to any employers considering starting up an occupational pension scheme for the first time. Those employers are usually small employers, because most large employers already have such schemes. We are talking about what is a sensible burden to place on small businesses. I do not believe that what the hon. Gentleman has in mind would be sensible. It would be seen as a great burden by small businesses, so they would simply decline to introduce occupational pension arrangements for their employees, and very little would be achieved in the process.

Mr. Meacher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has taken on board the essential point that I was making. Whether inflation is high or low, there tends to be the same ratio between investment yields and the retail prices index, which is the basis of pension increases. Even if the RPI rises, in the middle or longer term investment yields tend to rise roughly in the same proportion.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman forgets what happened in the late 1970s when, it is no coincidence to report, we had the misfortune to have a Labour Government. On Second Reading, I referred to two interesting tables which appeared in the report of the Occupational Pensions Board which show the way in which the investment yield on occupational pension schemes has improved over the past 10 years, as a result of which we now have large surpluses. We are not entitled to assume that we will always have large surpluses on pension schemes.
7.45 pm
When we had the misfortune to have a Labour Government, pension schemes were regularly in deficit. Of course, the employees expected the employers to make up the deficits and that is exactly what they did. They


sometimes had to transfer considerable additional sums to the pension schemes to ensure that they could meet the liability.
We are now considering a further extension of those liabilities, and I accept that it is the right time to make that extension. However, if we were to go further and make the change that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and if we were to return to those dark days of poor economic and investment performance, it would be extremely difficult for employers to meet the commitment that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The past five years have been very different from the six years of Labour Government. There has been a great transformation and no comparison can be made. However, we are not entitled to assume that that will continue for ever.
By definition, occupational pension schemes are instituted for the long term. We are talking about long-term commitments, long-term investments and long-term liabilities. That is why it is sensible to proceed cautiously. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has great expertise in these matters, has always taken a cautious approach.
The new clause constitutes a sensible balance. I accept what the hon. Member for Oldham, West said about actuaries and how they always produce different figures and assumptions, but actuaries may say that, as a result of the new clause, which will involve an extra commitment for many schemes, it will be necessary to increase the funding of those schemes by increasing the employers' or the employees' contributions.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, West realises that Members of Parliament have to pay such a large contribution to their pension scheme because we already have indexation. Our contribution is 9 per cent., which is very high.

Ms. Clare Short: That is because we have so many early leavers.

Mr. Smith: Early leavers are an occupational hazard here. I was an early leaver once and I do not wish to repeat the experience, and I am not expecting to do so. That may be a particular difficulty, but we pay 9 per cent. because of the generous indexation provision in the House of Commons pension scheme. It is the open-ended arrangement that the hon. Gentleman wants. A contribution of 9 per cent. is nearly double what most employees pay as members of occupational pension schemes, and during the recent debate on the matter there were complaints about the contribution which hon. Members make.
I am not sure that such a high level of contribution would be welcomed by people in industry generally. We should understand that, if we were to introduce the change that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, employees or employers would have to pay such a rate. There would be a substantial increase in contributions and that would be a considerable additional burden on business, would make it particularly difficult for small businesses and would lead to a reduction in the number of members of occupational pension schemes. Presumably that is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman hopes to achieve.
My right hon. Friend has found a sensible balance in the new clause. It will involve a major improvement for millions of members of occupational pension schemes, and the House should welcome it.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I intervene briefly to ask only a couple of questions, because I am more interested in progressing to the later stages of the Bill.
I welcome new clause 19, which is complicated. It enshrines a schedule and brings the benefits that have already been mentioned. Why did not the Government take the power to vary the 5 per cent. limit? The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made a valid criticism of the new clause, because there may be circumstances in which the 5 per cent. ceiling is considered onerous and unfair. In the past, Social Security Ministers, in a variety of guises and on a variety of benefits, have resorted to the power of regulation to amend such things as child benefit, which the Government have the power to increase annually but have not exercised. The Secretary of State could use such devices to ensure that yearly returns on schemes are fair and in line with the retail prices index. No doubt there is a technical reason why that is not possible, but it is worth pursuing.
The welcome changes made by new clause 19 may not take effect until 1 January 1992. The Government have had the report of the Occupational Pensions Board for several months, and Ministers have been considering the new clause for many months. Why might it be January 1992 before the benefits take effect? If it will take the Government that long to finish their homework, why did they not move the new clause during next year's Social Security Bill?
I am sure that the Minister will deal with that, but subject to those qualifications I give the new provisions a warm and enthusiastic welcome.

Mr. David Shaw: I welcome new clause 19. The improvements in private sector pension schemes under this Government are to be welcomed. The proposal for guaranteed minimum increases is extremely good.
As an accountant, during the period of office of the previous Labour Government in the late 1970s, I had some experience of company audits. One of the major accounting tasks for the year was to examine a company's pension fund to ascertain the deficit and whether the company was capable of making available the financial resources to meet it. During the period of price and dividend restraint, deficits increased enormously as profits were curtailed. Deficits in pension funds often were not capable of being met within a year or two, and as auditors we had to take a strong view of whether a company could survive. Many companies did not and their auditors had to say that the directors were unable to continue in business. While the Labour Government were in office between 1974 and 1979, companies closed because of deficits on their pension funds. Dividend restraint had a severe effect, because 40 per cent. of all dividends are paid into pension funds and life insurance schemes. The significant amounts that are paid can contribute to whether a pension fund is in deficit or surplus.
I further welcome new clause 19 because it will benefit about 10 million people. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not say that it will benefit many women who have jobs for the first time as a result of the growth in employment under the Government. It will be good for women generally, who have taken the opportunities for equality provided by the Government, and as a result the pensions and economy will be fairer and more balanced.


It is churlish for Labour Members to criticise the limiting of the increase to 5 per cent. During the late 1970s, they were unable to provide significant investment returns and much of British industry showed minus investment returns. They should not complain that the Government are trying to ensure increases in private pension plans. I do not know why they want to hark back to the late 1970s, when British industry showed negative returns and growing deficits in pension funds.
There is a danger of getting trapped in the wording of the legislation. One moves into theoretical areas, whereby if the legislation says that there will be a 5 per cent. increase, one assumes that such an increase is possible. Legislation is not responsible for growth in the economy. Growth in the economy provides increases in pensions. Legislation provides only a best intention and a practice that might he followed. Without growth in the economy, which we have had under the Government, there will be no growth in pensions. Unless the economy continues to expand as it has under the Government, and unless we have another decade of Thatcherism—

Ms. Short: Another decade of Thatcherism?

Mr. Shaw: Unless we have another decade of Thatcherism, there will not be the increases in pensions that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) would like. I know that the hon. Lady sincerely wants increases in pensions, but she must accept that that will not happen under a Labour Government. She must accept that the pension increases under this legislation would not be possible under a Labour Government.

Ms. Short: The thought of another decade of Thatcherism is unbearable to me, to the rest of the nation and, if they are honest, to many Conservatives Members. We had economic growth before we had the present Prime Minister. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of it, but he will find that since the second world war, and under different Governments, growth has increased by about 2·5 per cent. Pensions have been uprated and standards of living have increased. I am afraid that that was not invented by the present Prime Minister.

Mr. Shaw: I must disagree with the hon. Lady. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that investment returns are the key. We have had economic growth since the second world war. The Conservative Government between 1951 and 1964 achieved phenomenal economic growth, which worked its way into investment returns. Under the Labour Governments of 1964–70 and 1974–79, not only was there a lower rate of economic growth than under Conservative Governments, but far more important was the effect of that on investment returns and on dividends paid into pension funds. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that my accounting experience was that we had considerable deficits in pension funds between 1974 and 1979 and that much of British industry was technically insolvent because it could not meet its obligations to the pension funds that it had contracted to meet.

Mr. Wood: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the features of the period between 1974 and 1979 was that borrowers gained while those who relied on pension funds suffered because investments were losing out? Any growth that there might have been in the economy did not benefit pension funds.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. Any growth during the period of the previous Labour Government—few people have been able to measure growth under the Government—often benefited borrowers rather than savers. Because of the reduction in inflation and the increase in growth in the economy, which has started to filter through to savers, 16·5 million people are confident enough that savers will be rewarded that they are party to either private pension plans or life insurance savings schemes. We have increased people's confidence in saving. By encouraging people to save, we shall have a more responsible country. That is what the new clause is all about. Like the Budget, it provides great incentives for saving. People will not only save in their employers' pension plans but will feel more confident about saving generally in pension plans and about the rewards of saving.
The new clause is dependent upon the growth in the economy, on employers succeeding and having good rates of return and on those good rates of return working through into dividends and pension schemes that can afford to pay the pension increases intended by the Government. It is for those reasons that I welcome the new clause.

8 pm

Mr. Tim Devlin: I, too, welcome the new clause, which requires the payment of annual increases to members guaranteed up to the retail prices index or 5 per cent. It will give greater security to members of private schemes. I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about four-fifths of scheme members already obtaining increases.
The new clause is especially welcome because it runs alongside the many other welcome provisions in the Bill that we discussed at great length in Committee. There is encouragement and security for private pension schemes across the board. The Bill already provides for the establishment of an ombudsman to investigate disputes, the establishment of a tracing service to help track down pensions held with previous employers, further protection for members of schemes that are wound up, further protection for members of schemes when they leave early, and a provision to enable the Secretary of State to introduce a new ceiling on self-investment for pension schemes. The Bill does a great deal to look after those who, together with their employers, have invested in private pension schemes.
In Committee I made much of the ITM/Head Wrightson Teesdale scheme, which illustrated the need for greater security for small investors in private pension schemes. I made one or two remarks which, having appeared in the record, might give a slightly incorrect impression. I wish to take a minute or two to place an accurate account on the record. I do not wish anyone to be misled by what I said in Committee.
The Davy Corporation sold the business of Head Wrightson Teesdale to ITM, a company operating in my constituency. Part of the sale agreement was that pension benefits no worse than those enjoyed by employees under the Davy Corporation scheme would be provided by ITM. That obligation was accepted by ITM. The Davy Corporation transferred from its existing pension scheme a sum of money that had been re-negotiated between the actuaries of the two companies to meet the accrued


benefits of those employees transferring to ITM. When ITM went into receivership, its employees found that the benefits under their pension scheme did not match the benefits that they had been promised.
The problem was brought to the attention of the Davy Corporation, which contends that it fulfilled all its obligations to its previous employees—first, by ensuring that the new employer committed itself to maintain the benefits of the pension scheme for its new employees, and, secondly, by transferring the correct sum of money to the new scheme. That matter is still under debate.
Since then, partly because I raised the matter in Committee and elsewhere, the Davy Corporation is voluntarily helping the investigation into why the benefits were short, because it recognises that the employees have no means of carrying out that investigation for themselves and because the trustees of the scheme—three individuals—do not have the financial resources necessary to investigate the position properly.
In Committee, we discussed the security for employees in schemes that might collapse, and what could be done to remedy the position. In particular, arguments were advanced about the establishment of a pensions omudsman. I still contend that it is interesting that two individuals who were trustees of the ITM pension scheme were later taken into employment as directors by a subsidiary of the Davy Corporation, subsequent to the ITM receivership. They were employed by ITM at the time of the sale of Head Wrightson Teesdale and became employees of the Davy Corporation subsidiary only after the receivership years later.
There is a major question about whether a psroper value for the pension scheme was transferred between the companies. Of course, the Davy Corperation has no legal or contractual obligation towards the pensioners of that pension scheme. It is a difficult and highly complicated case and a good illustration of the reason why the new measures in this Bill are needed to protect the rights of employees. I hope to raise this case again, as it illustrates what can go wrong in the pensions world.
The new clause is a proper compromise between the interests of the employer and those of the employee. It is part of the Bill's much wider approach towards the whole question of private pension schemes. We need to encourage such schemes, but it is not the case that all schemes will always be in surplus. The scheme to which I have just referred and which I raised in Committee was significantly in deficit. I look forward to a report, at an early date, by the Davy Corporation actuaries detailing proposals to help those employees who lost when the company went into liquidation.

Mr. Newton: In my fairly extensive experience as a Social Security Minister at every level it has been rare that such a universally warm welcome should be given to my proposals. I shall bask in that for a moment, in the sure expectation that that mood is unlikely to continue throughout the night. I am grateful for the support that has come from all quarters. I am deeply admiring, even more so than previously, of the assiduous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has pursued the interests of a significant number of his constituents—

Mr. Frank Field: With a reading age of 12.

Mr. Newton: I do not know to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring, but as it sounded offensive I shall not pursue his remark.
I say gently to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that it is wrong to talk of a Government U-turn in what I have said and done to change the balance of what was already a very significant proposal for schemes that are wound up. I understood him to be claiming credit for the Opposition, but I must disappoint him: what I have proposed is a very long way away from what I can only describe as the half-baked and irresponsible proposal that he made on Second Reading.
According to the hon. Gentleman's proposal, we should make schemes give away every scrap of their surpluses straight away, and if they could not then continue to pay the benefits to which that gave rise, they should be allowed to cut them again. That was his proposal.

Mr. Kirkwood: indicated assent.

Mr. Meacher: rose—

Mr. Newton: I was not trying to enrage the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State's last comments were not worthy of him. He made a very silly knockabout comment which did not even begin to reflect what I said. However, instead of taking up time with another debate on what I said on Second Reading, I hope that the Secretary of State will read my Second Reading speech closely. If he then wants to talk about it, he will at least reflect accurately what I said.

Mr. Newton: I will not go any further down what is obviously a sensitive path. However, taking the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) as an independent arbiter, as he was nodding, he is obviously on my side in this argument.
It was suggested that we should have gone beyond the 5 per cent. ceiling of the legal requirement, as distinct from what we might like to see schemes do in certain circumstances. In the course of making points about that and asking whether the figure should be higher, the hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to inflation over the past 20 years and to the scale of investment surpluses that we have all seen in schemes over the past few years. The only comments that need to be made about that were eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) in his excellent speech and by my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) in their equally eloquent speeches.
By taking the last 20 years, the hon. Member for Oldham, West includes a period in which inflation rose to disastrous levels under the previous Labour Government. Partly as a consequence of that inflation, more and more schemes found themselves in great difficulty because the investment surpluses on which the hon. Member for Oldham, West would rely did not exist. If we were to go beyond the requirements that I am proposing, even if there was the remotest possibility of the hon. Member for Oldham, West being the Secretary of State for Social


Security imposing these requirements, employers are afraid that they would go bankrupt and that they would not be able to pay pensions.

Mr. Meacher: I do not want to prolong the debate. However, we must be absolutely clear that the very high level of inflation in the mid-1970s occurred for two central reasons. The first was the quadrupling of the price of oil that fed through all western economies after 1972–73. The second cause was the enormous and irresponsible credit explosion which Lord Barber, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, unleashed on the economy, the effects of which lasted for the next four years. That is exactly what the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), did between 1985 and 1987. Those were the causes of the inflation. Perhaps the Secretary of State should recall that in 1981, when this Government had been in power for two years, inflation reached 22 per cent.

Mr. Newton: That most certainly reflected the legacy of the Labour Government who had presided over the latter part of the 1970s.
The serious point in the debate is that, in this area above all, it is necessary to strike a balance in the requirement that one imposes on schemes. If we overdo it and impose requirements that frighten off employers or which they believe in certain circumstances—some of which I speculated about already-would become unsustainable, some employers who are already running schemes would consider whether they should continue to do that, and others which might be considering setting up schemes might decide that the risk of doing that was too great.
Of course the balance of considerations can be seen as changing from time to time. It is implicit in my proposals that we believe that, in present circumstances, the balance has moved decisively in favour of the additional requirements that I am now imposing. I also believe that, if we were to go much further—one or two in the industry have expressed doubts whether we may not have gone a fraction too far in our proposals—some people would be frightened off from having schemes or continuing the schemes that they have at present. We must strike a balance and I am sure that my hon. Friends believe that we have got it about right.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield stated, a balance must be struck with surpluses. He put his point very well. As happened in the late 1970s, if a deficit emerges, the employer is expected to make it up. I do not believe that it would be reasonable to create a double bind for employers. If they get it wrong one way and their actuaries under-forecast the amount of contribution that is required, the employer is expected to make it up without limit. If the employer and the actuary get it wrong the other way and they over-contribute, there is no way in which they can get any of that back. I believe that we have the balance about right.
8.15 pm
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire queried whether we should vary the 5 per cent. limit from year to year. Inescapably, employers and those who advise them must be able to look ahead at their commitments and plan for the contributions or investment provisions required to meet them. It is not possible suddenly to impose from year to year, according to the rate of inflation

in any particular year, a sudden increase in commitment because by definition the employers would not have been able to account for that.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also referred to 1 January 1992. That is the likely date, although it is not certain. If I can bring it forward, I will. The reason for that date relates back to points made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. In some cases, because of the new requirements that we are imposing, employers will have to look at the rate of contribution required in the scheme to ensure that they can meet those requirements. It is obviously right to give them some time to consider the scheme before imposing requirements on them. 1 t would be wrong to say that, as from tomorrow, a requirement which employers had heard about only a few weeks ago and for which they had not funded should suddenly have to be met. We must give schemes some time to adjust.
I hope that I have covered most of the points raised in the debate. I am sorry if I inflamed the hon. Member for Oldham, West beyond what I had intended in what has in general been a very good-natured debate. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West for the supportive attitude that he has adopted, which I am sure will be continued throughout our debates this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

LIABILITY TO MAINTAIN DEPENDANTS

`(1) After section 24 of the 1986 Act (recovery of expenditure on benefit from person liable for maintenance) there shall be inserted—

"Recovery of expenditure on income support: additional amounts and transfer of orders.

24A.—(1) In any case where—
(a) the claim for income support referred to in subsection (1) of section 24 above is made by the parent of one or more children in respect of both himself and those children, and
(b) the other parent is liable to maintain those children but, by virtue of not being the claimant's husband or wife, is not liable to maintain the claimant,
the sum which the court may order that other parent to pay under subsection (4) of that section may include an amount. determined in accordance with regulations, in respect of any income support paid to or for the claimant by virtue of such provisions as may be prescribed.

(2) Where the sum which a court orders a person to pay under section 24(4) above includes by virtue of subsection (1) above an amount (in this section referred to as a "personal allowance element") in respect of income support by virtue of paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (personal allowance for lone parent) the order shall separately identify the amount of the personal allowance element.

(3) In any case where—
(a) an order under subsection (4) of section 24 above is made against a person ("the liable parent") who is the parent of one or more children, in respect of the other parent or the children, and
(b) payments under the order fall to be made to the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (6)(a) of that section, and
(c) that other parent ("the dependent parent") ceases to claim income support,
the Secretary of State may, by giving notice in writing to the court which made the order and to the liable parent and the dependent parent, transfer to the dependent parent the right to receive the payments under the order, exclusive of any


personal allowance element, and to exercise the relevant rights in relation to the order, except so far as relating to that element.

(4) Notice under subsection (3) above shall not be given (and if purportedly given, shall be of no effect) at a time when there is in force a maintenance order made against the liable parent—
(a) in favour of the dependent parent or one or more of the children; or
(b) in favour of some other person for the benefit of the dependent parent or one or more of the children;
and if such a maintenance order is made at any time after notice under that subsection has been given, the order under section 24(4) above shall cease to have effect.

(5) Except as provided by subsection (6) below, where the Secretary of State gives notice under subsection (3) above, he shall cease to be entitled—
(a) to receive any payment under the order in respect of any personal allowance element, or
(b) to exercise the relevant rights, so far as relating to any such element,
notwithstanding that the dependent parent does not become entitled to receive any payment in respect of that element or to exercise the relevant rights so far as so relating.

(6) If, in a case where the Secretary of State has given notice under subsection (3) above, the dependent parent makes a further claim for income support, then—
(a) the Secretary of State may, by giving a further notice in writing to the court which made the order and to the liable parent and the dependent parent, transfer back from the dependent parent to himself the right to receive the payments and to exercise the relevant rights; and
(b) that transfer shall revive the Secretary of State's right to receive payment under the order in respect of any personal allowance element and to exercise the relevant rights so far as relating to any such element.

(7) Any notice required to be given to the liable parent under subsection (3) or (6) above shall be taken to have been given if it has been sent to his last known address.

(8) In this section—
child" means a person under the age of 16, notwithstanding section 26(3)(d) below;
court" shall be construed in accordance with section 24 above;
maintenance order"—
(a) in England and Wales, means—

(i) any order for the making of periodical payments or for the payment of a lump sum which is, or has at any time been, a maintenance order within the meaning of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971;
(ii) any order under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (overseas divorce) for the making of periodical payments or for the payment of a lump sum;

(b) in Scotland, has the meaning given by section 106 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, but disregarding paragraph (h) (alimentary bond or agreement).
the relevant rights", in relation to an order under section 24(4) above, means the right to bring any proceedings, take any steps or do any other thing under or in relation to the order which the Secretary of State could have brought, taken or done apart any transfer under this section.

Reduction of expenditure on income support: certain maintenance orders to be enforceable by the Secretary of State.

24B.—(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person ("the claimant") who is the parent of one or more children is in receipt of income support either in respect of those children or in respect of both himself and those children; and
(b) there is in force a maintenance order made against the other parent ("the liable person")—


(i) in favour of the claimant or one or more of the children, or
(ii) in favour of some other person for the benefit of the claimant or one or more of the children;

and in this section "the primary recipient" means the person in whose favour that maintenance order was made.

(2) If, in a case where this section applies, the liable person fails to comply with any of the terms of the maintenance order—
(a) the Secretary of State may bring any proceedings or take any other steps to enforce the order that could have been brought or taken by or on behalf of the primary recepient; and
(b) any court before which proceedings are brought by the Secretary of State by virtue of paragraph (a) above shall have the same powers in connection with those proceedings as it would have had if they had been brought by the primary recipient.

(3) The Secretary of State's powers under this section are exercisable at his discretion and whether or not the primary recipient or any other person consents to their exercise; but any sums recovered by virtue of this section shall be payable to or for the primary recipient, as if the proceedings or steps in question had been brought or taken by him or on his behalf.

(4) The powers conferred on the Secretary of State by subsection (2)(a) above include power—
(a) to apply for the registration of the maintenance order under—

(i) section 20 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950;
(ii) section 2 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958; or
(iii) the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982; and

(b) to make an application under section 2 of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 (application for enforcement in reciprocating country).

(5) Where this section applies, the prescribed person shall in prescribed circumstances give the Secretary of State notice of any application—
(a) to alter, vary, suspend, discharge, revoke, revive, or enforce the maintenance order in question; or
(b) to remit arrears under that maintenance order; and the Secretary of State shall be entitled to appear and be heard on the application.

(6) Where this section applies, the Secretary of State shall be treated for the purposes of any enactment or instrument relating to maintenance orders as if he were a person entitled to payment under the maintenance order in question (but shall not thereby become entitled to any such payment).

(7) In this section "maintenance order" has the same meaning as it has in section 24A above, but does not include any such order for the payment of a lump sum."

(2) Until such time as there comes into force an amendment of Schedule 1 to the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (maintenance orders to which the Act applies) which has the effect of including among the orders specified in that Schedule any order for periodical or other payments made or having effect as if made under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, the definition of "maintenance order" in subsection (8) of the section 24A of the 1986 Act inserted by subsection (1) above shall have effect as if, in paragraph (a), after subparagraph (ii) there were inserted—
(iii) any order under paragraph 1(2)(a), (b) or
(c) of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (financial provision for children against their parents);".

(3) In section 26 of that Act, in subsection (3) definitions for purposes of sections 24, 25 and 26) after the words "section 24" there shall be inserted "24A, 24B".'.—[Mr. Newton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Newton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Before I launch—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) looks puzzled. I am sure that she will accept that I have done the right thing.

Ms. Short: indicated assent.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful.
Before I say anything else about the new clause, which concerns lone parents, I simply want to say that I hope that I shall not be accused of being sexist if throughout I assume for practical purposes that lone parents are generally female and absent parents are generally male, simply to ease my sentences. Of course, as the House knows, there is a significant number—although small in proportion—of lone parents who are male and absent parents who are female.
New clause 21 focuses on particular problems relating to maintenance for lone-parent families. As the House knows, the number of families in Britain headed by a lone parent has risen substantially in recent years. The proportion of those families that have to rely on supplementary benefit and now income support has also increased and stands at about two thirds.
It is important to recognise, in view of the concern expressed about that, that those trends are not unique to the United Kingdom. Similar changes have happened in several other countries. Our social security system rightly provides help to lone-parent families who need it, as it does to others, but another valuable source of help for those families is maintenance. Regular payments of maintenance provide a basis of income that can help smooth the path from dependence on benefit to full-time work and independence. That is valuable to the family, but too often it is not paid. Absent parents have a clear legal responsibility to maintain their families as far as they can, but in far too many cases that responsibility has not been fulfilled or properly enforced.
The number of lone-parent families dependent on income support in 1988 is more than double the number on supplementary benefit in 1979, but payment of maintenance has not kept pace. In 1979 maintenance was paid for about half of the lone-parent families on benefit, but in 1988 the equivalent figure was only a quarter.
The Government have already announced that they are reviewing the maintenance system to see what changes need to be made to the way in which maintenance is awarded and operated. A survey of the work in a sample of courts and DSS local offices is under way to provide full, up-to-date information as a basis for deciding on the best way forward. We are examining the system that is in use in other countries to see what lessons can be learned from them. I am planning to visit the United States next month to see the approach that is taken there. We aim to bring forward proposals later this year. Radical changes, should they prove possible, will obviously take a little time to come into effect. That does not mean that we could or should stand still in the meantime. We have also been seeking to improve the effectiveness of the present system. The House will recall that I announced in the uprating debate a month or two ago that we are tightening the way in which we assess an absent parent's ability to pay maintenance for his family on income support.

Mr. Tim Smith: My right hon. Friend spoke about a review. Does he agree that this is a serious and urgent

problem, and can he say whether the results will be announced in time for legislation to be introduced in the next Session? We should have as little delay as possible in bringing forward worthwhile changes.

Mr. Newton: At this stage I cannot respond exactly and in detail, not least because, as my hon. Friend will be aware, it is not the practice for Ministers to comment on what may be in the Queen's Speech. We certainly hope to bring forward proposals this year at a time that would enable us to consider the possibilities that my hon. Friend has raised. I entirely accept what he says about the importance of the issue. I hope that he will agree that it is also a complex and difficult issue that needs to be properly considered.
As I said, we are seeking in the meantime to make various changes in the present system. New clause 21 seeks to take us further in three ways. One of them is in relation to the realistic assessment of maintenance and the other two seek to help maintenance work more in the interests of lone parents than is often the case at present.
The first step in the new clause brings social security law more into line with family law. We took a step in that direction last year when we extended liability for children beyond the 16th birthday to cover those children who remain dependent at 16, 17 and 18. Family law could already do that. In the new clause we are proposing to empower courts to consider the cost to the mother in caring for the absent parent's children, which will mean that Department of Social Security staff can do the same in seeking voluntary agreements on maintenance.
The Department can currently seek its own order against an absent parent, which reflects that parent's liability under social security law. In brief, where the parents were divorced or were never married, it applies only to the benefit paid for the children. Under family law, courts can look wider and can consider the mother's costs as child carer in deciding what to award for children. Before we even consider going to court, the Department seeks to come to a voluntary arrangement with the absent parent on the basis of what the courts could award. The new section 24A in the new clause will provide a regulation-making power that will be used to specify that, once having looked at the allowances and premiums that are paid because there are children, the court should also have regard to the income support personal allowance paid for the mother. By increasing the scope of what the courts can award, we are increasing the scope of what voluntary agreements can cover and, therefore, what the Department can seek.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I should like to put to my right hon. Friend two points that he may be about to cover in his speech. What will he do in cases where maintenance has been awarded to a mother and her children and the mother then moves in with another man whom she does not marry but by whom she is supported? Will the court or the legislation insist on the natural parent paying the maintenance? What happens when access to a child has been granted but the mother does not provide it? Will the legislation still insist on the maintenance payments being made?

Mr. Newton: I shall deal first with my hon. Friend's second point. Over the years I have been child care Minister in my various welfare capacities and have dealt with that subject. Access to the children should be


considered quite separately from whether maintenance should be paid for the children. It is not appropriate to tie the two together.
The other matter which links with that and which focuses specifically on the question asked by my hon. Friend is perhaps not sufficiently appreciated. At the end of the day, the Department of Social Security on its own cannot enforce anything that the courts are not prepared to enforce. We cannot compel a lone parent to agree to something, although we can go to court if we want the court to impose something. Once a court has imposed something, it is open to the person on whom the maintenance order has been made to go back to the court for a variation.
It is not for me to speculate on what someone would do in circumstances such as those referred to by my hon. Friend. However, I expect that in such cases the absent parent might well wish to go back to the court and argue that the circumstances in which a maintenance order was imposed in respect of the former partner as carer and the children should be varied. It would be for the parent to decide whether to pursue the matter and it would be for the court to decide on it.

Mr. Marlow: I shall put my second point again. If access has been granted and is denied by one parent, does my right hon. Friend think that it is right, fair and proper that the other parent should still be required to pay maintenance?

Mr. Newton: They are separate issues. If access has been granted under a court order—I take it that that is what my hon. Friend is postulating—the denial of that access can be pursued in the court under that order. Equally, if maintenance has been granted under a court order, the failure to pay it can be pursued under that order. In considering a maintenance order, it would be for the court to decide whether to have regard to a sense of grievance about access.

Ms. Short: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton: I understand that the hon. Lady wishes to take part in the debate.
Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) does not totally agree with what I have said, I hope that he will at least understand the points that I have sought to make.

Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton: Yes, but I am conscious of the fact that Opposition Members wish to speak.

Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm an important point that is frequently misunderstood by people when they talk about access? Access is a right that belongs to the child to see its parent. It is not a right that belongs to the parent to see the child. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that?

Mr. Newton: I should need to take advice before saying whether that was the legal position. I rather doubt that it is. It is somewhat outside the scope of the main thrust of the debate and I should like to get on with my speech, if only in the interests of ensuring that the hon. Member for Ladywood can make her speech.
I want to emphasise that when deciding what to award, the courts will continue to look at what the absent parent can afford to pay, as will DSS staff when negotiating voluntary agreements; but in a case in which an absent parent can afford more than the children's benefit, we shall look to obtain some or all of the caring parent's personal allowance. The courts will be able to order that a personal allowance be paid on top of the children's benefit, which means that in those cases the courts will have a flexibility similar to that under family law.
8.30 pm
The second change that we propose as part of new section 24A also concerns an order that the Department can obtain on its own behalf. It seeks to remove the need for a lone parent leaving benefit to go to court to obtain a separate private maintenance order. We propose that when a DSS order has been obtained, it should be possible to transfer it to a lone parent who is leaving benefit. That would apply in so far as the order relates to the costs of the children and when the lone parent does not already have a maintenance order of her own. The aim is that a transferred order should be consistent and fit in as nearly as possible with family law, so that a lone parent who leaves benefit and takes a DSS-obtained order with her is in the same position as someone who obtains her own maintenance order. We believe that that measure will make it easier for a lone parent without her own order to make the transition from benefit to work.
By enabling a lone parent to take with her the maintenance for children obtained under a DSS order, we avoid the need for her to go to court for a new set of proceedings to get her own order, which is often argued to be a significant disincentive to taking the step of going back to work. She will have the same rights to enforce or vary the order afterwards as we in the DSS would have had. Both parents and the court will be informed of the transfer, and of course the absent parent—to pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North—will still be able to go back to the court, as now, if his circumstances have changed or if he feels that other circumstances have.
In our view, it would not be right or necessary to transfer a DSS order if a private maintenance order were already in existence. The private order would have priority, and the same principle would apply if a private maintenance order were obtained later. The existence of a private order would mean that a transferred DSS order would cease to have effect.
Thirdly, new section 24B will enable the DSS to enforce a claimant's own maintenance order for her when payments are not being made in full, if the lone parent is claiming income support for herself and her family. Quite properly, the Department has a strong interest in ensuring that absent parents go on meeting their responsibilities for the family and that payments under any such order to the lone parent are made. The proposed new section gives practical effect to that interest when payments under a court order are not made in full and an absent parent, for whatever reason, is not minded to put that right.
As things stand, the only remedy in such circumstances is for the lone parent herself to ask the court to enforce, and many such parents, for understandable reasons, do not want to do that. We propose to take power to do that on their behalf, with the aim of ensuring that prompt action is taken in all these cases, thus reducing the chance


of the absent parent getting into the habit of non-payment. We also think it right that the DSS should be able, if necessary, to be heard on any proposal to reduce the amount to be paid.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Not having served on the Committee, I have not followed all this, but in the event of a delay and of the mother not being able to obtain the maintenance to which she is entitled, while the Department is pursing the father to try to get the money, will it be able to make extra payments to the mother to compensate her until the money is forthcoming from him?

Mr. Newton: One of the reasons for our concern about this matter is that, given that the basic purpose of income support is to make people's income up to a given level, the practical effect is precisely that unpaid maintenance is replaced by income support.

Mr. Frank Field: The right hon. Gentleman is telling the House that he is seeking powers to enable maintenance orders to follow the mother when she starts work. Under the third part of the new clause, will the Department's power to collect money also continue when a mother is in work, or is the measure only to do with saving welfare payments while she is on benefit?

Mr. Newton: No, I have already said that once an order has been transferred, under the second of the proposals, a lone parent will have the same rights to enforce it as the DSS. Under the current arrangements, once a lone parent was not on benefit and an order had been transferred to her, it would then be her responsibility to enforce it. The hon. Gentleman, with his close interest in this subject, will know that the issue that he has raised is one of those that we shall examine in the broader review of maintenance that we are undertaking—which will include experience from Australia, the United States and various other countries.

Mr. Field: I promise my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that this will be my last intervention. Neither I nor mothers outside the House can understand why the Government have not sought powers in this measure to help women when they move back to work to take over responsibility for the collection of these funds. That would be quite feasible, but the Government have decided not to do it. Why?

Mr. Newton: Because it raises much wider issues. Once a maintenance order has been transferred to someone who is not in receipt of social security benefits of the type that I am discussing—primarily income support—there seems no reason to treat it differently from a maintenance order in favour of someone who has never been on benefit. Many such orders exist. I am not saying that such a move could not be contemplated under any circumstances, but it could be considered only in the context of a much wider reform of the maintenance system.
These three measures form a consistent and sensible package within the constraints of the current system. However, we are doing more than merely making the legal changes that I have announced. I should like to take this opportunity to mention some further steps that we are taking to improve the way in which all these arrangements work at local office level.
First, we shall shortly issue revised guidance covering the need to do more to emphasise to lone parents the

responsibility of the absent parent and the advantages of reflecting that responsibility in proper maintenance arrangements established at the outset. Those advantages will clearly be increased by the legal changes proposed in the new clause, not least by easing the way for the lone parent who wants to move back into employment. The guidance will make clearer the fact that the normal expectation should be that a lone parent will co-operate in establishing where responsibility lies and in obtaining maintenance, while continuing to recognise that there may be cases in which, for particular reasons, the lone parent still does not want to name the father.
At the same time, when lone parents are unwilling to help in establishing the responsibility, we shall seek to build up a clearer picture of the reasons to help our further and wider consideration of the whole problem of maintenance.
Secondly, the House will be aware that as a result of action initiated last year the amount of maintenance recovered by the DSS in respect of lone parents on benefit rose from £155 million in 1988–89 to an expected £180 million in 1989–90. That improvement in part reflects the extent to which, over a number of years until recently., that work has been given a lower priority than most would think it deserves. In our objectives for the coming year, we shall underline even more strongly the fact that that work should be given proper priority and resources, and I expect a further increase in maintenance paid in this respect, to about £260 million in 1990–91.
The proposals in the new clause together with the other actions that I have outlined make clear the Government's commitment to ensuring that absent parents do more to meet their responsibilities for their families. We are pressing ahead with work on the more radical options—I have noted the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—but in the meantime we are doing what we can to improve the position because we believe that it is important for everyone involved, especially for lone parents and their children.
What I have proposed will be widely welcomed, and I commend the new clause to the House.

Ms. Short: I am extremely angry. It is 8.40 pm and we have a guillotine at 9 pm. We have another whole group of Government new clauses and amendments to come. This is an enormously important matter. The new clause covers three and a half pages, yet we have so little time to discuss it. This could have been considered in depth in Committee. The Government say that they did not have time, but the previous Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), said at the 1988 Tory party conference that there would be measures, and implied that they might be punitive, to get money back from fathers whose children were living on supplementary benefit. That is a long time ago.
In January the Prime Minister made her speech and, according to the Library, the Secretary of State gave an unattributable briefing on the same day about the Government's intentions. The House is brought into disrepute. This is a serious and important matter and it is intolerable that it is being dealt with in this way. The Government should be ashamed of themselves.
The Government's main motivation behind the package is to save the cost of social security benefits, not to assist lone-parent families to come off benefit and enjoy a free, independent life. The narrowness of the


Government's objective is deplorable and sad. Only one of the three measures in the new clause will assist lone parents: when a mother comes off benefit she can take the order which has been obtained by the Department with her. We welcome that. It is entirely good and will help mothers to make the move off benefit and into work.
The Secretary of State misleads the House when he says that the law of his Department is being brought into line with family law. That is disputed by the National Council for One Parent Families. The Library was surprised by his assertion. I know the one case to which he refers and I suspect that he is misleading the House. I do not suppose that he does it deliberately.
If a mother is on income support it will be possible to claim the costs of the income support against the father. That is all that the Government are providing. The minute she comes off income support, if she has never been married to the father, she has no right to claim maintenance for herself, because she is caring for the family. The Government's motivation is entirely to save the costs of benefit. There is no intention to help women both to stop being dependent on benefit and to work, if that is what they want.
The third provision is exactly the same. The Government intend to take action where fathers do not pay, if the mother is on benefit, in order to make him pay and to save benefit costs. Absent parents, who are usually fathers, should pay for their children, but we need to do something for the overwhelming number of lone parents who are living in poverty and caught in the poverty trap. The Government have not attended to that serious issue.
I am deeply disappointed by the package. It is unworthy of the Secretary of State, who I thought had more to him. The figures are shocking. We have in Britain about 1 million lone parents, of whom about 722,000 are living on income support. The proportion who live on income support has increased considerably under the Government because of the erosion in the value of child benefit and other benefits, and the growth in the poverty trap. The Government's benefit changes have trapped increasing numbers of lone parents and their dependants on benefit. They have removed the right of a woman who lives on supplementary benefit and works part time to offset some of the costs of going to work and of child care against benefit. The Government have changed that and trapped more women in complete dependence on benefits. In 1961, one in six lone parents were on supplementary benefit whereas in 1987 two thirds were.
The size of the trap is shocking. A lone parent with two children on benefit gets the enormous sum of £65·80 a week to spend on herself and her children. A lone parent on £150 a week wages, paying £55 a week for child care—that is a reasonable cost for two children as child care can cost more—would get £57·26 a week to live on and would be worse off. A lone parent with two children must get at least £172 a week to be better off than when she is living on benefits. That is the problem and the trap.
The way out is non-means-tested benefits, such as child benefit which the Government have been busy eroding and which they seek to allow to shrivel away, better child care provision, training and access to jobs for women. That is the strategy of the Labour party policy review; our aim is to create pathways out of poverty—stepping stones to

assist people who are forced to live in poverty. One such group is lone parents. When they choose and when their children are ready, they should be able to step into part-time work and training, and child care should be available.
The Government are not concerned about that. They are not concerned that many women and children who have been badly treated by the man in their life, not always but often, are living in poverty. Nothing in this package seeks seriously to help. The Government are trying to claw back benefit costs. We cannot discuss the matter properly. The proposal is not good enough to deal with this serious problem. Because one part of the provision is positive, we shall not oppose it, but we are deeply disappointed. The Government have muffed an opportunity to assist lone parents.

Mr. Frank Field: If it is true that there is great rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents, given the line that the Treasury Bench is taking, paradise must be breaking out in celebration this evening because the Government's stance has changed.
Although the Secretary of State was too modest to mention it, in the past 11 years we have seen a collapse in the idea that wherever possible a male should be responsible for his offspring if the offspring are left to be dependent on welfare. It is to the Government's shame that they allowed that to develop. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, that has resulted in an increasing number of women being forced to be dependent on means-tested assistance. Nevertheless, the Government are turning and I am pleased about it, although I share my hon. Friend's reservations about the measure's limitations.
I am not against the collection of maintenance to offset it against the cost of income support payments. That is proper. I am not against mothers being asked about the whereabouts of the father or who the father is.

Ms. Short: I was brief so that my hon. Friend and others could speak. As a result I neglected to mention that I believe that, under the guidance that the Secretary of State announced, women will be pressurised and harassed to name the absent father when, for good reasons, they do not wish to do so. That will be an ugly side of this package.

Mr. Field: I am not against those questions being asked, but, as my hon. Friend has said, this is a delicate area. Some women will not want to name the father for fear of being beaten up. They will look at the Government's package to see whether it is worth taking that risk. Their lives, like many people's lives, are full of risks and they must make those decisions. They will ask the very questions that my hon. Friend has asked. To what extent are the Government offering a new package?
The Government are showing considerable interest in moving quickly at the Prime Minister's behest to save on the cost of welfare, while providing a limited bridge to the world of work, in that a maintenance order may remain with a woman when she goes back to work. The Secretary of State gave no explanation why at this stage he could not include in the new clause, which we are discussing for the first time and which looks like a new Bill, the idea that the Department would continue to be responsible for collecting the funds and paying them to the mother,


whether or not she is on welfare. That would have changed the balance of the package to a mother who is making the crucial decision whether it is worth accepting it.
There is a further stage. It is right to consider mothers who have never been on benefit and who might want the state at some stage to take over the responsibility of collecting. It is extraordinary for Ministers to argue that, because we cannot do everything, we cannot achieve tonight what is realisable.
My brief comments are almost identical to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood. One part of the new clause is to be welcomed. Despite the Government's change of heart, this is a missed opportunity to strike out and to begin to offer a new deal to show that the Government are on the side of single mothers, of making parents responsible and of encouraging people, wherever possible, to take up work when it is available. The new clause will be viewed for the measure that it is: although the Government have some interest in these issues, their primary purpose is merely to save taxpayers' money. Although that is important, this is, sadly, a missed opportunity.

Mr. Newton: I shall respond only briefly, although with some sadness, compared with my feelings during the previous debate, and with some surprise at the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He, of all people, should know that, in essence, we have a system of assessing and collecting maintenance that has proved increasingly unsatisfactory because of the unhappy increases in marriage breakdowns and, for a variety of other reasons, in the number of lone parents.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, other hon. Friends and I have consistently made it clear over some months that we see a need for much wider reform than could possibly be encompassed within the scope of an amendment tabled to the Bill. The matter is complex. In most of the countries that have introduced new systems, considerable preparation time and, because of the number of interests involved, considerable consultations have been required. The system has often had to be introduced by stages—first, by improving the arrangements for enforcement of existing orders and then, to take the Australian example, by coming forward with a new system of assessing maintenance for future cases. Much the same has happened in the United States.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead implied that somehow, in two or three months, we could have reached the stage of tabling to the Bill amendments containing the kind of sweeping, overall reforms that we both agree would be desirable, if we can find the right basis for them.

Mr. Frank Field: I was not trying to cause offence to the Minister. I am pleased that he has a grasp of how strongly I feel about this subject. If the Government had gone on to the next stage requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and me and had introduced a separate measure, we probably would not have opposed it. We would have had a full debate and the provision would have been quickly dispatched to the other place and would have returned. It is a matter not of the constraints of the Bill but of the Government having chosen to link this provision to it. We should have welcomed a more comprehensive measure, separate from the Bill, so that we could have a proper debate. The debate

would not have been held up. The matter would have been considered expeditiously. The Secretary of State has not made an adequate defence.

Mr. Newton: There may simply be a misunderstanding between the hon. Gentleman and me. The Government are not at this moment in a position to bring forward a comprehensive proposal for reform. We have done a good deal of work. One of our senior officials has looked closely at the Australian system. We have set in hand a significant survey of courts and DSS offices to give us additional information about the way that the present system works. That is all intended to help us shape wider proposals which we hope to bring forward later this year.
We do not think that it is right, simply because it will take time to bring forward more comprehensive proposals, not to take any steps to make what improvements can be made within the present system. That is what we are trying to do in these proposals. That approach would be widely welcomed outside the House and inside it, if not by those hon. Members who have spoken. It contains useful improvements in the portability of orders obtained by the DSS and in the capacity of the DSS to enforce orders that a lone parent has obtained while she remains on benefit.

Ms. Short: There is nothing in it for her.

Mr. Newton: There is something in it for her. The maintenance will go on being paid in a form that at some stage can improve her position if she returns to work.

Mr. Frank Field: What will happen if the father does not pay up?

Mr. Newton: That is precisely the point. If the DSS is prepared to enforce the maintenance order that has been made in favour of a lone parent, it is more likely that the absent father will continue to pay up.

Mr. Frank Field: It is the exact opposite. If the DSS has problems in getting the money off the father, what chance will the mother have without the sanction of the DSS behind her?

Mr. Newton: We are again talking at cross purposes. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made a point about the third element in the proposal whereby if a lone parent is on income support but has a maintenance order that she has obtained, the DSS will enforce that order. The hon. Lady said that that did not do anything for the lone parent. I think that we would all agree that the position of a lone parent for whom maintenance is paid, for various reasons, is better in a general sense—not necessarily in the immediate monetary sense—than the position of a lone parent for whom maintenance is not paid. The DSS's capacity to ensure that a private maintenance order continues to be paid is therefore an improvement on the present position.

Mr. Frank Field: indicated assent.

Mr. Newton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Birkenhead at least agrees with me on that point.

Ms. Short: I wish that the Minister would be straightforward about what he is doing. The fact that the Department will claim for an absent father who does not pay only when the woman is on benefit shows that the Department wants to look after its money, not the woman. The fact that the Department will claim against the man


for the time that the woman spends in maintaining the child only when she is on benefit shows that the Department wants to save its money. The only tiny provision in the package for the woman is that the order obtained by the DSS can go with her when she goes off benefit. The Department's overwhelming concern in this package is to save money for itself, not to assist low-income, lone parents to have a better life, more freedom and higher incomes. I wish that the Secretary of State would be honest about that.

Mr. Newton: It would be thoroughly dishonest of me even to begin to suggest that I accept the hon. Lady's comments, which are ridiculous. Her suggestion that securing the more effective collection of maintenance under maintenance orders does not help the interests of lone parents is a piece of absolute nonsense of which she will be ashamed when she has had the opportunity to think about it.
Clearly, the Opposition are anxious to make further progress, and I understand that. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Ladywood, even with her rather less than generous and less than understanding remarks, does not intend to oppose these proposals. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 22

REIROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF SECTION I 65A OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT

'(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 165A of the principal Act—

"Retrospective effect of section 165A.

165AA.—(1) This section applies where a claim for benefit is made or treated as made at any time on or after 2nd September 1985 (the date on which section 165A above, as originally enacted, came into force) in respect of a period the whole or any part of which falls on or after that date.

(2) Where this section applies, any question arising as to—
(a) whether the claimant is or was at any time (whether before, on or after 2nd September 1985) entitled to the benefit in question, or to any other benefit on which his entitlement to that benefit depends, or
(b) in a case where the claimant's entitlement to the benefit depends on the entitlement of another person to a benefit, whether that other person is or was so entitled,
shall be determined as if section 165A above, as in force at the time of the claim referred to in subsection (1) above, and any regulations made under or referred to in that section as so in force, had also been in force, with any necessary modifications, at all times relevant for the purpose of determining the entitlement of the claimant, and, where applicable, of the other person, to the benefit or benefits in question (including the entitlement of any person to any benefit on which that entitlement depends, and so on).

(3) In any case where—
(a)a claim for benefit was made or treated as made (whether before, on or after 2nd September 1985, and whether by the same claimant as the claim referred to in subsection (1) above or not), and benefit was awarded on that claim, in respect of a period falling wholly or partly before that date, but

(b) that award would not have been made had the current requirements applied in relation to claims for benefit, whenever made, in respect of periods before that date, and
(c) entitlement to the benefit claimed as mentioned in subsection (1) above depends on whether the claimant or some other person was previously entitled or treated as entitled to that or some other benefit,
then, in determining whether the conditions of entitlement to the benefit so claimed are satisfied, the person to whom benefit was awarded as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall be taken to have been entitled to the benefit so awarded, notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above.

(4) In subsection (3) above "the current requirements" means—
(a) the provisions of section 165A above, as in force at the time of the claim referred to in subsection (1) above, and any regulations made under or referred to in that section as so in force, with any necessary modifications; and
(b) subsection (1) (with the omission of the words following "at any time") and subsection (2) above.

(5) Any reference in any enactment to section 165A of this Act (but not a reference to any specific provision of that section) shall be taken to include a reference to this section.

(6) This section shall be taken to have come into force on 2nd September 1985."

(2) In Schedule 20 to the principal Act (glossary of expressions) in the second column of the entry relating to "entitled" and cognate expressions, for the words "section 165A" there shall be substituted the words "sections 165A and 165AA".

(3) Section 32(4) of the Social Security Act 1985 (which made similar provision to that made by subsection (3) of the section inserted by subsection (1) above) shall be deemed never to have been enacted.

(4) In paragraph 48 of Schedule 10 to the 1986 Act (which applies sections 87 and 165A(1) of the principal Act to income-related benefits) in paragraph (b), for the words "section 165A(1)" there shall be substituted the words "sections 165A(1) and 165AA".

(5) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) above shall be taken to have come into force on 2nd September 1985.'.—[Mrs. Gillian Shephard.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 24, 25, 84, 67, 85 and 26.

Mrs. Shephard: I shall have to be extremely brief if I am to give even the gist of the Government's intention in the new clause and the amendments.
The new clause amends various provisions of the Social Security Acts 1975 and 1985 to re-establish the accepted policy that, generally speaking, a person shall not be regarded as entitled to benefit for any period unless a claim has been made within the prescribed time limits.
Hon. Members will recall that it had always been our understanding that the law achieved that effect—until a judgment in the House of Lords in November 1984 in the case of a Miss Margaret McCaffrey, when their Lordships held that entitlement to benefit could exist even where no claim had been made.
Although that judgment referred specifically to noncontributory invalidity pension, the decision had much


wider implications across the social security front. It was decided that the effects of McCaffrey should be nullified, and section 165A was inserted in the Social Secrity Act 1975 to achieve that, with effect from 2 September 1985, or so we thought.
In June of last year, a social security commissioner held, in the case of a Mr. Cartwright, that the word "entitled" where relating to an event before 2 September 1985 meant "entitled" in the McCaffrey sense—that is, without requiring that a claim must be made for the benefit.
The effect is that, contrary to the policy intention, an understanding that has existed through Administrations of both parties at least back to the start of the national insurance scheme in 1948—

It being Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE SOCIAL FUND

`(1) In section 32 of the 1986 Act, after subsection (8D) there shall be inserted—
(8E) The Secretary of State may give general directions to social fund officers or groups of social fund officers, or to any class of social fund officers, with respect to the control and management by social fund officers or groups of social fund officers of the amounts allocated to them under subsections (8A) to (8D) above.".

(2) In subsection (10) of that section (power to nominate a social fund officer to issue guidance to other officers in his area on specified matters) for the words "to issue" there shall be substituted the words "who shall issue".

(3) In section 33 of that Act, after subsection (10) (questions to be determined in accordance with general directions) there shall be inserted—
(10ZA) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (10) above, the Secretary of State may issue directions under that subsection for the purpose of securing that a social fund officer or group of social fund officers shall not in any specified period make awards of any specified description which in the aggregate exceed the amount, or a specified portion of the amount, allocated to that officer or group of officers under section 32(8A) to (8D) above for payments under awards of that description in that period.

(4) In subsection (10A) of that section (which specifies certain matters with respect to which directions may be given) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted—
(f) that a social fund payment such as is mentioned in section 32(2)(b) above shall only be awarded to a person if either—

(i) he is in receipt of a benefit under the benefit Acts which is specified in the direction and the circumstances are such as are so specified; or
(ii) in a case where the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (i) above are not satisfied, the circumstances are such as are specified in the direction;".

(5) At the end of that section there shall be added—
(13) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) make provision with respect to the time at which an application for a social fund payment such as is mentioned in section 32(2)(b) above is to be treated as made;
(b) prescribe conditions that must be satisfied before any determination in connection with such an application may be made or any award of such a payment may be paid;

(c) prescribe circumstances in which such an award becomes extinguished.".'.—[Mr. Scott.]
>

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss New clause 3—Social Fund—
'In section 33 of the 1986 Act,—

(a) subsection (9)(e) shall cease to have effect;
(b) at the end of subsection (10) there shall be added the words "but shall not refuse by reason of the amount of any allocation made under section 32(8A) above to award a payment which he would otherwise award".'.

Government amendments Nos. 86 and 87.

Mr. Scott: During my statement to the House on 26 March I outlined our response to the judicial review judgments on the social fund. I explained that, although the court found that some of the guidance on budgets was too prescriptive, its judgment explicitly recognised that Parliament clearly intended that the scheme should be subject to strict monetary limits and that the Secretary of State needed to be able to give directions to achieve financial control.
In the light of that, and so that there should be no doubt that it is the Government's intention that the social fund should be operated within a firm budgetary framework, we have introduced this amendment to make explicit the power of my right hon. Friend to give directions relating to the financial control of the fund. The amendment will similarly put beyond doubt my right hon. Friend's power to specify who might be eligible for payments from the fund.
The clause also makes provision for regulations to clarify the date on which an application to the social fund is to be treated as having been made, and operational matters relating to applications and awards.
I will explain in more detail the effect of the amendments that we are making under the clause. The subsection we are inserting after section 32(8) of the Social Security Act will make explicit the power of my right hon. Friend to give directions to social fund officers on control and management of the sums allocated to them for discretionary payments.
The directions made under this power will, we envisage, cover the requirement to plan the expenditure from the local allocation through profiles of anticipated expenditure and recoveries and levels of priorities of needs that can be sustained from the allocation. They will require social fund officers to have regard to such factors in reaching decisions in individual cases.
They will also require the area social fund officer normally the local office manager, as I said on Monday—to keep the profiles and levels of priorities under review and revise them in the light of changing circumstances. The directions will, therefore, clarify and reinforce the present position. That is, they will ensure that social fund officers manage the funds allocated to them responsibly and sensibly.
At present, the area social fund officer—normally the local office manager—is responsible for controlling the local office budget. Under the existing section 32(10), he may issue guidance on matters which the Secretary of State specifies. This includes guidance on the level of priority that may be sustained from the budget. But the area social fund officer is not under a duty to issue such guidance. The


amendment we are making to section 32(10) will require the area social fund officer to issue guidance on matters specified by the Secretary of State.
As I said, it has always been our intention that the social fund should operate within a firm, financial framework. We do not believe that that is incompatible with the proper exercise of discretion by social fund officers. Consequently, it is essential to the successful operation of the fund that its resources are managed so as not to exceed the amounts allocated for payments. Under the present legislation, it would be possible to issue directions on matters relating to the control of the budget. I have already mentioned the power that we are taking in respect of directions for the management and control of local budgets. The additional power that we are taking under the new clause will reinforce the effect of those directions by giving the Secretary of State explicit power to issue directions requiring social fund officers to keep within their allocations.
Such directions will, therefore, preclude a social fund officer, or a group of social fund officers, from making any award that would result in the sums allocated to that officer or group of officers being exceeded. This must be right if the scheme is to operate within the strict monetary limits, as Parliament originally intended, and as was recognised by the court. We cannot have a situation in which social fund officers may continue to make awards regardless of whether there is money available to fund such awards.
The purpose is to concentrate help where it is most needed. It is important that the Secretary of State is able to specify who will be eligible for help and where the line is to be drawn. The amendment to section 33(10A) is intended to make explicit his power to do so. The provision is in two parts. The first part restricts eligibility to certain payments from the fund—community care grants and budgeting loans—to persons receiving the benefit or benefits specified in directions. Such payments are available only to persons receiving income support and, in the case of community care grants, to people shortly to leave institutional care who are likely to receive income support upon discharge.
The second part of the amendment provides explicit direction-making powers governing eligibility to the fund, whether or not the applicant is receiving a specified benefit. This is intended to cover the position in respect of crisis loans, which are available to anyone, whether or not on benefit, who faces a crisis as the result of a disaster or an emergency. Given the Secretary of State's power to issue directions, it may be considered that an explicit power to issue directions on eligibility is overegging the pudding. However, as with the rest of the clause, we are concerned that the position on the fundamental principles of the scheme, like the budget and eligibility, should be absolutely clear to all concerned. This amendment achieves that. By making explicit the power to issue directions concerning applicants' eligibility for help from the fund, it confirms both the inherent flexibility of the fund and its ability to target help on those who need it.
I turn to the regulation-making powers under the new clause. The principles by which the fund operates are now well known. Although there may be differences between the Government and the Opposition on what those

principles are, I think that, in general, they are well understood. However, some matters may be less clear to hon. Members. We believe that it will be helpful to applicants, their advisers and local office staff if these matters are spelt out in regulations in the same way as they are for the procedures concerning applications to the fund and applications for review. In spelling these things out, we are also making the way in which the scheme operates more accountable to Parliament.
The regulations will cover several procedural matters. The first is the date on which an application for help from the fund is to be treated as made. This will clarify that an application is to be treated as having been made on the day of its receipt in the local office. The second procedural matter that the regulations will cover is the conditions that must be satisfied before any application can be satisfied or any award made—for example, where a community care grant has been made in anticipation of the applicant's discharge from residential care, and where the applicant is not actually discharged. The third procedural matter is the point at which an award becomes extinguished. For example, an applicant might die after an award but before payment could be made, or an applicant might fail to cash a giro within 12 months of its issue.
The new clause will come into effect with the granting of Royal Assent. The amendments that are being made here make it abundantly clear that, as I said to the House on Monday, it is the Government's firm intention that the social fund should continue to operate fairly and flexibly against the framework of a budget and eligibility focused on those who are most in need. On that basis, I commend the clause to the House.

Mr. Meacher: We have just listened to a desultory and depressing speech from the Minister which he read solidly, without an ounce of conviction. He continues to mouth words about flexibility and discretion, but everything the Government do and the new clauses that they bring to the House are a standing denial of everything that the Minister has just said.
I admit at the outset that there is one advantage today over the position that existed two days ago when the Minister made a statement on the social fund. We have now got the Government amendment to the Bill in the light of the High Court judgment. However, we might as well not have had it, since it takes us not one iota further forward. It has taken the Minister five weeks to decide that his response to the High Court decision should be to pretend that it never happened. The court's judgment is being treated in the new clause as a minor distraction to which the proper response is to overturn it as soon as possible through more draconian legislation.
Only one concern guides Government policy on the social fund—how to cut it. Nothing, including the law, will get in the way of that. That is why the social fund has been frozen since its introduction in 1988 and why the supposedly generous increase announced on Monday is actually a further cut in real terms, since the extra £10 million does not even cover inflation.
Today's statement is not only cynical in its attitude to the law but it is dishonest. The Government know that they cannot issue directions to local offices to cash-limit funds until the Bill becomes law without risking legal challenge. So, instead, they issued guidance in such a way as to tell social fund officers with a nod and a wink to hold back the flood until the dam is in place.


I have listened and thought carefully about the matter. I am open to challenge if I am wrong, but I believe that the message from the Government today is that it is business as usual but local offices should not shout about it until the Government have squared the courts. Why else does the Minister refuse to agree to contact claimants who have been illegally refused grants? Those people have to find their own way through bureaucracy to make their own claims. That is a wholly improper response by the Government. It is one thing for the Government, having been found to have been acting outside the law, to decide to change the law, but it is another for them to refuse to seek out and compensate those who have been deprived of their rights because current law has not been adhered to by the Government.
The heart of the matter is that the Government still refuse to face up to the fundamental flaw in the social fund—that there is incompatibility in its two aims of flexibility in meeting needs and rigidity in limiting costs. The Minister referred to it again today. He seems to be able to say that black is white and that he is still preserving flexibility and discretion, when patently he is not.
The new clause will go further in the other direction. The Government are still trying to have it both ways; they are softening the guidance to social fund officers and muddling through until the summer while cocking a snook in the meantime at the High Court decision by refusing any active review of past claims, even though many of them have been shown to have been improperly handled. When the Bill becomes law the Government will enforce new rules which will ensure that the budget is always the paramount consideration in assessing new claims. At that point any idea of flexibility or discretion will fly out of the window and the fundamental principle of the welfare state, which has prevailed under all Governments, including Tory Governments, since the war—that there is an ultimate safety net for meeting unconditionally the basic needs of citizens—will he finally eroded. That is the message of the new clause.

Mr. Scott: I am sorry if I interrupt the hon. Gentleman at a comma in the speech that he is clearly reading to the House of Commons. He said that we were cocking a snook at the court but we are not. We accept the judgment of the court about the way that we were administering the intention of Parliament, which found that in one small regard we were at odds with that intention. We have issued guidance to ensure that in the interim period social fund officers interpret the law in the light of the court judgment, but Parliament has the right to change that and to reassert its original intention. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Meacher: That is exactly the point that I am making. The Government are determined that the paramountcy of the budget will prevail over all other considerations. They are changing the law in that respect, but, in the meantime, with the law as it stands, the Government have not properly handled claims that have been made on the social fund.
If the Government believe in acting in accordance with the law, it is their duty—indeed, it is incumbent upon the Government—to contact past claimants who have been cheated of their rights and to ensure that under the existing law they get those rights until the law is changed.

Mr. Scott: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making a wider point about cocking a snook at the court, which we clearly are not because we have issued guidance to social fund officers. We are coming down to practicalities—that is far from cocking a snook at the court—and to the best way to ensure that people who may have been turned down in the past can be made aware of their rights. We are doing that by ensuring that our officers, the citizens advice bureaux and other welfare rights organisations are issued with leaflets which will clearly spell out people's right to ask for a review of their case.
Frankly, I suspect that in the vast majority of cases the circumstances in which the original claim was made and rejected will have changed substantially by now and what the hon. Gentleman suggests would be a waste of time and effort. It would also arouse claimants' expectations and they would certainly be disappointed when they finally came to make their claim. That is not a sensible way to proceed.
We have no wish to hide the fact that claimants have a right to come forward and ask for a review. Leaflets have been widely distributed and publicity has been accorded to the subject, not least by debates in the House and the appearances by the hon. Gentleman and myself on radio and television. I hope that anyone who feels that they may have been turned down unfairly will come forward to ask for a review. Reviews will be carried out promptly in the light of the instructions that we have issued and because of Justice Pill's judgment that the state of the budget when the original claim was made and the present state of the budget should be taken into account.

Mr. Meacher: That was a small speech in itself and I shall reply to a number of the points raised in it—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman spoke for several minutes.
The Minister is saying that his reason for not contacting past claimants who have been deprived of their rights is that their circumstances may have changed in the meantime. Yet he is encouraging them to claim. He is sending out leaflets explaining how they can do so. If they had rights at the time that they made the original claim, those should be met now. They should be adhered to, because that is the law.
Merely putting leaflets into citizens advice bureau offices and social security offices means—let us be perfectly straight about this—that the Government are washing their hands of the business. The Minister knows perfectly well that the kind of people who are normally claimants of the social fund are not avid readers of the Government's leaflets. They need to be contacted, if the Government are seriously concerned that they should get their rights.
I believe that the Government are cocking a snook at the High Court judgment. That is exactly what they are doing. All that they have done is to send out guidance to social fund officers. That guidance is less prescriptive than it was before.
The High Court judgment said that consideration of budget was not the only essential factor. There should also be a test of reasonableness and a test of commonsense application in the assessment of those needs. Those were the other two considerations in the High Court judgment and the Government have totally ignored them.
The Government have acted in a high-handed manner over the High Court decision. They take the view that the


claims can no longer be afforded and that is fundamental to the whole argument. The Minister looks puzzled, but he constantly talks about the need for strict cash limiting of the budget—presumably because he believes that the open-ended and unconditional meeting of need that has always existed in the past—even under Conservative Governments—can now no longer be afforded. The Government can afford open-ended mortgage interest tax relief, which has increased sevenfold in the past decade, to about £7 billion. They can afford open-ended subsidies to private residential and nursing homes, which have increased hundredfold over the past decade, from about £10 million in the early 1980s to more than £1 billion now. The Government can afford open-ended subsidies for personal pensions, now costing some £2 billion, to bribe people into ideologically approved but highly speculative pension arrangements. The only thing that the Government cannot afford is to provide open-ended support—at a fraction of those other costs—for those at the very bottom of society whose needs are manifest and intractable.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Do I take it from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the Labour party is against mortgage interest relief and against giving help with the costs of residential care?

Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Lady cannot follow my line of argument, she will have to listen a great deal more carefully.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have been listening.

Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Lady had been listening, she would have heard me say to the Government that if they can afford £7 billion in mortgage interest tax relief and £1 billion to subsidise residential and private nursing homes, one might have thought that they could afford a little more than £200 milliona penn'orth in terms of the overall social security budget—to meet the needs of people at the very bottom of society. If there is anyone deeply in need in our society it is those whom we are discussing now.
The new clause would intensify the two most odious and objectionable features of the social fund. One is the cash limiting of the relief of poverty—something that even Conservative Governments have never done in the past—so that thousands of destitute families, however searing their need, will be denied help because the money has not been made available. That has never happened before.
The other consideration is the fixing of that budget cap at an aggressively low level, which is only slightly over half of the budget that existed before. That is bound to multiply the numbers who are forced to do without. That is why refusal rates today are soaring at 60 to 70 per cent. Of the other 30 or 40 per cent. who manage to get loans, more than 400,000—nearly 10 per cent. of all claimants—are having to repay social fund loans out of their basic income support, which is meant to provide their basic daily subsistence costs.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Is not it a matter of public record that the Government are paying out £1 billion a week, which I work out at roughly £145 million per day, on benefits to help the very people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred? We all meet such

people in our everyday work; I certainly do in my part of the world. But there is more help than there has ever been, and that is a matter of fact.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Lady is not quite right. For the reasons that I have given, the £1 billion a week of the social security budget is not being directed at social fund claimants. It is being directed at the increasing number of people who are dependent on social security. Their numbers are growing. There are about 500,000 more pensioners than there were at the start of the decade. That is not the responsibility of the Government; the need has to be met. But the increase has come about not because benefits are more generous or because the Government have focused more closely on the need; it is simply that there are more people in the categories that have a right to those benefits. The number of unemployed is still about 60 to 70 per cent. higher than it was at the start of the decade, and the number on income support has almost doubled since then. Those are the reasons for the high figure—not that assistance is being given to the people who really need it.
The Government's new clause does not even begin to address the ocean of hardship, poverty and debt that is undoubtedly washing over the social fund. I cannot believe that the Minister is unaware of that. The Government's hard line in the new clause, in changing the rules to make budget capping even more pronounced, as a reason for rejecting claims will intensify hardship. We take the opposite view, expressed in new clause 3, that social fund officers should be prevented from refusing payments on the ground that there is not enough money in the local office budget and revert to the system that always operated since 1945. Because we totally repudiate the Government's social fund's strategy, we seek to vote down their new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 197.

Division No. 144]
[9.25 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Aitken, Jonathan
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Alexander, Richard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Allason, Rupert
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amos, Alan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arbuthnot, James
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Burt, Alistair


Ashby, David
Butler, Chris


Aspinwall, Jack
Butterfill, John


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Atkinson, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carttiss, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Batiste, Spencer
Chapman, Sydney


Bellingham, Henry
Chope, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Body, Sir Richard
Colvin, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Conway, Derek


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Couchman, James


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Cran, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Critchley, Julian


Bowis, John
Currie, Mrs Edwina






Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dunn, Bob
Knowles, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawrence, Ivan


Evennett, David
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Tony
Lightbown, David



Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forth, Eric
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gardiner, George
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mans, Keith


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Marland, Paul


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marlow, Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mellor, David


Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Miller, Sir Hal


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Roger


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Harris, David
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayes, Jerry
Mudd, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neale, Gerrard


Hayward, Robert
Needham, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neubert, Michael


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholls, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Norris, Steve


Holt, Richard
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hordern, Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Irvine, Michael
Price, Sir David


Irving, Sir Charles
Raffan, Keith


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Redwood, John


Janman, Tim
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Rhodes James, Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion





Rossi, Sir Hugh
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rost, Peter
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rowe, Andrew
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ryder, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thurnham, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. B'heath)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Trotter, Neville


Shelton, Sir William
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter


Shersby, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sims, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Speed, Keith
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Stevens, Lewis
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wood, Timothy


Stokes, Sir John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sumberg, David



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Tony Durant.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Crowther, Stan


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cryer, Bob


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Alton, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunningham, Dr John


Armstrong, Hilary
Dalyell, Tam


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Darling, Alistair


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'L)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Dobson, Frank


Beckett, Margaret
Doran, Frank


Beggs, Roy
Douglas, Dick


Beith, A. J.
Duffy, A. E. P.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bermingham, Gerald
Eadie, Alexander


Blair, Tony
Eastham, Ken


Blunkett, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boyes, Roland
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bradley, Keith
Fatchett, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fisher, Mark


Buckley, George J.
Flannery, Martin


Callaghan, Jim
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Derek


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fraser, John


Cartwright, John
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clay, Bob
George, Bruce


Clelland, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cohen, Harry
Gordon, Mildred


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Corbett, Robin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce


Cousins, Jim
Harman, Ms Harriet






Haynes, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Pike, Peter L.


Henderson, Doug
Prescott, John


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Home Robertson, John
Redmond, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Illsley, Eric
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rowlands, Ted


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ruddock, Joan


Kilfedder, James
Salmond, Alex


Kirkwood, Archy
Sedgemore, Brian


Lamond, James
Sheerman, Barry


Leighton, Ron
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Litherland, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livsey, Richard
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sillars, Jim


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McCartney, Ian
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Snape, Peter


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McGrady, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McKelvey, William
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Straw, Jack


Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maginnis, Ken
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marek, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Vaz, Keith


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wall, Pat


Martlew, Eric
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Walley, Joan


Meacher, Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N.


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'L &amp; Bute)
Wigley, Dafydd


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morgan, Rhodri
Wilson, Brian


Morley, Elliot
Winnick, David


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mullin, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Murphy, Paul
Wray, Jimmy


Nellist, Dave
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, William
Tellers for the Noes:


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Martyn Jones and


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. Ray Powell.


Patchett, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 26

INCOME SUPPORT IN RESPECT OF ACCOMMODATION CHARGES FOR CERTAIN PERSONS IN RESIDENTIAL CARE AND NURSING HOMES

'In section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation of income-related benefits) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted
(2A) In prescribing, for the purposes of income support, amounts under subsection (1) above in respect of accommodation in any area for qualifying persons in cases where prescribed conditions are fulfilled, the Secretary of State shall take into account information provided by local authorities or other prescribed bodies or persons with respect to the

amounts which they have agreed to pay for the provision of accommodation in relevant premises in that area.

(2B) In subsection (2A) above—
accommodation" includes any board or care;
local authority" has the same meaning as it has in Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948;
qualifying person" means any person such as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section 26A of that Act (which is inserted by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and relates to persons ordinarily resident in residential care or nursing homes immediately before the commencement of that section);
relevant premises" has the meaning given by subsection (2) of that section.".'

Brought up, and read the First time.—[Mr. Newton.]

Mr. Newton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider new clause 14—Persons in residential care and nursing homes—
'(1) The Secretary of State shall review the amounts specified in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Part I of Schedule 4 to the Income Support (General) Regulations as soon as practicable, in order to determine whether they are adequate, having regard to the reasonable cost of providing suitable accommodation, board and suitable personal care for the persons concerned, and shall lay before Parliament a report on his conclusions and the evidence on which they are based.
(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that any of those amounts are not adequate, he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an up-rating order substituting such amounts as he considers adequate, which may include different amounts for different areas, and, if the draft order is approved by a resolution of each House, he shall make the order in the form of the draft.
(3) The provisions of an order under this section shall come into force on the day on which the order is made.
(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, if a claimant to whom regulation 19(1) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 applies or, on his behalf, the proprietor of the home in which he lives applies to an adjudication officer for a review of the appropriate amount determined in his case for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 4 to those regulations on the grounds that that amount is not sufficient to enable him to pay a reasonable charge for suitable accommodation, board and suitable personal care provided in that home, the adjudication officer shall refer the questions whether that amount is sufficient for that purpose and, if not, what higher amount would be sufficient to a social security appeal tribunal for determination.
(5) If an adjudication officer to whom an application has been made under subsection (4) above is of the opinion that he can determine the questions mentioned in that subsection by reference to—

(a) a determination made by a tribunal under that subsection in the case of another claimant living in the same home, or
(b) the advice of a local authority with knowledge of the home in question, he may determine those questions instead of referring them to a tribunal.

(6) If a tribunal to which a question has been referred under subsection (4) above determines that the amount determined by the adjudication officer is not sufficient, or an
adjudication officer so determines under subsection (5) above, the adjudication officer shall review his determination of the appropriate amount, substituting the higher amount determined by the tribunal or by him.'.

Mr. Newton: During my speech I shall comment on the three strands of the Government's response to some of the concerns expressed during the debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill two weeks ago, and also on a particular point made in the report of the


Select Committee on Social Services on the need for greater information about the costs and charges of residential care homes.
As the House is aware, under the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, the Government's intention is that, from 1 April 1991, local authorities will negotiate prices with voluntary organisations and home owners before making a contract for places in residential care and nursing homes for new cases arising after that time. Obviously, to make a contract, both parties to the agreement—the local authorities and the voluntary organisations or home owners—will have to be satisfied that the prices are fair.
During an extensive debate on the anxieties about the position that might arise between those whose care would be organised under the new arrangements and those whose support would continue to be made under the preserved income support entitlement under the existing regime, a number of hon. Members—including, not least, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)—suggested that those prices resulting from a contractual arrangement should be used by the Department in setting the appropriate income support limits for those with preserved rights to income support.
I shall not attempt to repeat everything that' I said during that debate, other than that I could envisage some difficulties in simply taking any price that any local authority negotiated for any person in any home and making that the automatic setting of the level for income support in that home. I think that I carried many of my hon. Friends with me on that and also in my criticisms of the Opposition's new clause that we were then debating.
As I promised when replying to that debate, since then I have carefully considered the suggestions made. In particular, I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Acton an assurance that if, on examination, it appeared that an amendment to social security law was required to ensure that I could respond properly in taking account of what emerged from local authority negotiations, I would table an amendment to this Bill, as it is the last practicable opportunity to introduce such a power before the community care charges take effect in April 1991. That is why I have tabled the new clause, which ensures that I can act along the lines urged in taking account of what emerges from local authority negotiations with voluntary organisations and home owners in setting the income support rates.
The power that I am taking in the new clause is designed to help me to set up a system of local limits, if need be. In setting such limits, I want to have regard to both the charges being met by local authorities in homes and also, perhaps, the charges being met by other bodies such as the voluntary sector. In fairness to my hon. Friends, whose concern I understand and respect, I am not saying that it would necessarily be possible to make use of those powers at the absolute starting point in April 1991.
It is clear that we shall need to gain experience of what local authorities are negotiating. For a long time, there may be many homes in which local authorities have not negotiated and have not placed people. It would be foolish of me to suggest that we can suddenly produce a wholesale change in the system at the point of changeover. However, once we have adequate information on the scale required, the new clause will give me the power to respond in the way

suggested by many of my hon. Friends. We shall be talking to local authority associations, as soon as possible, about how local authorities can help us in that respect.
I will be brief in relation to my next point, because our time for debate is limited and many hon. Members want to speak. I want now to consider a need that goes beyond the need for information about what local authorities actually do. I want to consider the need, which I accept, for more and better information about the true costs of running residential care and nursing homes. In particular, the Select Committee on Social Services has recommended that we should commission an early study into that. As I said in our debate on 13 March, I fully accept the force of that request; I hope to approve the commissioning of the necessary research in the near future, and I will let the Select Committee and the House have further details as soon as I can.
9.45 pm
My comments so far have responded to the overt purpose of the new clause in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill that was debated two weeks ago. I have responded to suggestions made then about the social security regime in the wake of the community care changes being introduced in April 1991 and also to the request made by the Select Committee on Social Services.
One of the striking things about the debate on that new clause two weeks ago was that much of what was said, especially—but not only—by my hon. Friends, was not directed to the overt purpose of that new clause, which was concerned with the post-1991 regime. Comments then reflected a wide measure of concern about the income support limits in the present year, quite apart from what the position might be after April 1991.
As the House knows, the income support limits are due to be increased in virtually all cases by £10 a week in a fortnight's time. For example, that will take the basic residential care home limit to £173 a week in Greater London and £150 a week elsewhere. It will take the basic nursing home limit to £223 in Greater London and £200 a week elsewhere.
In all, this year's increases will be the biggest since November 1985, at a cost of £100 million. They take the expected total of income support in such cases in 1990–91 to well over £1,100 million. That is a substantial rise, which will undoubtedly help to ease some of the pressures reflected in our debates. However, I have carefully considered whether there is more that I can appropriately do when, as I said to the House in the earlier debate, the information currently available does not provide a sufficiently secure base for more detailed geographical or local variation or for further fine tuning between different categories of case or home.
It is clear from all the information available, whether anecdotal or from representations that we have received, that the pressure on nursing homes is greater than that on residential care homes. That is understandable, in view of the scale of the increases in nursing pay which have taken place as a result of the Government's actions over the past two years.
Following on from the uprating that is about to take place, I propose to make a further increase in the limits in mid-August—the earliest time consistent with sensible handling of the case load in the Department of Social Security offices. At that time, all residential care home limits will be increased by a further £5 a week, making a


total of £15 a week more than at present and taking the figure to £178 a week in Greater London and £155 a week elsewhere.
All nursing home limits, with one exception, will be increased by a further £10 a week, making a total of £20 a week more than at present. That will take the figure to £233 a week in Greater London and £210 a week elsewhere. The one exception is that, for hospices and other cases covered by the limit relating to people who are terminally ill, the increase will be a further £15 a week, making a total of £25 a week more than now. That will take that very important limit to £283 in Greater London and £260 a week elsewhere.
That will mean that the cost of increased limits next year will be £45 million more than the £100 million announced in my October uprating statement, giving a total increase of about £150 million compared with 1989–90. In a full year, the total cost of the impending uprating, the one due in a fortnight's time, together with the further increase that I have announced, will be about £170 million.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton: No, not at this stage.
The additions that I have announced can be accommodated in the existing DSS programme of over £50 billion, apart from an addition of just over £20 million from the reserve which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has agreed for 1990–91. What I have been able to say on this clause properly responds to concerns that have been legitimately and responsibly expressed in the House. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Before we continue the debate, I must tell the House that I have selected a manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). It has been available for some time, and for the convenience of the House I shall read it out. It is: to leave out "take into account" and insert
determine the amounts required to meet the costs of providing such accommodation of a suitable standard by reference to".

Mr. Meacher: This new clause was tabled at the last possible moment, late last night, a full fortnight after the matter was debated in the House. Clearly, there has been agonising over exactly what should go into it. With the exception of the extra money, which is certainly welcome and with which I will deal in more detail later, the new clause takes us very little further than the last time the issue was debated.
What safeguards does the new clause offer? That is the key point. Of course, the Government will consider the information that is provided by local authorities on the charges that they consider acceptable, but they do not need a new clause to do that. The measure does not do anything for those who are facing shortfalls and possible eviction in the immediate future. The Secretary of State, who is always a fair man on such issues, was good enough to make that clear.
The new clause will not come into effect until April 1991 and that will be too late to help people either this April or next April. The question that was asked on Second Reading continues to be relevant and it is about who will

meet the shortfall in the meantime. Above all, the new clause does not give any guarantees that it will meet the level of payment agreed between local authorities and homes. It says that the Secretary of State will take the information into account. We certainly wish him to do that, but above all the House wishes him to act on it and there is no specific commitment in the new clause that makes it clear that he will.
For those reasons the new clause does not give security to the 176,000 sick and elderly people who could face eviction because the Secretary of State is not guaranteeing that they will not be evicted. That is the crucial criterion. It was the criterion on Second Reading and it remains the criterion on which each hon. Member should base his judgment. It does nothing to stop homes charging more for residents not covered by agreements with local authorities, which is another point.
As I have said, we welcome the extra money. That is certainly important. The Secretary of State has said that the residential care limits rise by £5 over and above what he stated before and the amount for nursing homes will rise by £10 and for hospices by £15. While that is welcome, he must be aware that the gap that has to be filled is often about £30, £40 or even £60.
What matters is not whether assistance is given to make up the shortfall but whether it is enough to prevent the eviction of the elderly person. Although the money is welcome, I suspect that it will not serve that purpose in many cases.
New clause 14 requires the Secretary of State to review the income support limits for residential and nursing homes and to enable adjudicating officers and appeal tribunals to decide that the limits should be exceeded, when necessary, to meet reasonable charges for suitable accommodation. To some extent, the Government are following our lead, but the crucial difference is that they are holding back from a commitment to solving the problem.
There are two elements in our new clause: first, the Secretary of State's review of the limits could and should be done straight away. Both sides of the House agree that there is no need to wait until 1991. We also believe that the Government have a duty to review the limits, for two reasons. The explosion in the number of people in those homes is the result of Government policy. In the early 1980s the Government did not provide the cash for local authorities that was needed for community care, and they encouraged people to go into private care on the understanding that the costs would be covered by social security. Moreover, since 1985 the income support limits have been uprated by less than is required to cover increasing costs. This April's £10 increase, now raised to £15, is still less than inflation requires.
During the community care debate the Secretary of State said that we need more and better information, and he undertook to present proposals to the Select Committee. We welcome that; it is obviously needed. But we do not believe that the collection of information should be used to stall. There is enough information already to show that some safeguards should be provided. The Government have admitted to the Social Services Select Committee that no fewer than 42 per cent. of people in care and in receipt of income support live in homes that charge more than the income support limits. So tonight we are discussing the fact that two in five of these people face a shortfall. I shall not repeat this at length, because we have already discussed it, but that is not a matter of


unreasonable charges. The National Federation of Housing Associations found that most of the homes that it surveyed, which were not profit-making, had shortfalls of £30 or more, and one in five had a shortfall of £60. Those figures should be taken carefully into account alongside those that the Minister gave earlier.
The second part of our new clause ensures that an adjudicating officer or tribunal will have the power to exceed income support limits. The Government say that adjudication officers do not have the capacity to determine reasonable charges, on the ground that when they had that job in 1985 they came up with wildly differing levels in various parts of the country. Surely, however, the answer lies in guidelines and assistance from local authorities. The problem will apply only for this year, because as from April 1991—we are agreed on this—officers and tribunals will have the local authority-agreed charges as a guideline. The Government new clause says that the Secretary of State will take those levels into account, but what is wrong with adjudicating officers and tribunals doing the same?
While we welcome the Secretary of State's statement, having reviewed the matter with extreme care, we do not believe that it goes far enough—a view that may be widely shared. For all those reasons we intend to press new clause 14 to a Division when the time comes, because it alone guarantees protection against eviction for 176,000 elderly people in residential and nursing homes. We should prefer to press our manuscript amendment to a Division. I sought to achieve the same purpose by tabling it, because it advances protection for elderly residents in a way that I believe commands majority support in the House. Our preference is to vote on that. If for any reason we cannot do so, we shall press Government new clause 26 to a Division because it does not go far enough. It is far too late to say that the Secretary of State shall take into account relevant information. That ignores the spirit and intention of the Division in the House a fortnight ago. Above all, it does not provide security against eviction, which it is unforgivable for any civilised Government to withhold from frail and needy elderly people.

10 pm

Sir Anthony Grant: Two weeks ago, it was with great regret that I found myself in the unusual position of being unable to support the Government. I was deeply distressed that, in my constituency, nursing home proprietors were subsidising unfortunate elderly people. I was even more appalled that, if nothing was done, those old people could be evicted. That was the reason for my speech and vote.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has come to the House with a solution. We should recognise the struggle that he has had. We all know that, at the end of the day, one must do battle with the Treasury. I give complete credit to my right hon. Friend for responding to the views expressed on both sides, doing battle with the Treasury and winning that battle. For that reason, we should respond appropriately.
Unlike the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), I am not worried that the Minister
shall take into account information provided by local authorities".
That is precisely what I wanted him to do in the previous debate. Those words fulfil my wishes. I understand that there is to be a gap until April 1991, but we now know that more money will be available and that it is a sensible

amount, so appropriate arrangements can be made. I hope and believe that nursing homes and residential homes in my constituency can tide over the gap if necessary, as 1 hope, with some assistance from the county council. In any event, they can inform the Minister of that.
Costs are high in London, but let us not disregard the fact that in some parts of East Anglia, as my right hon. Friend will know, particularly Cambridgeshire, costs are high and obtaining nursing staff is difficult. Therefore, I ask him to consider the geographical position carefully.
The problem has been going on for some time. I have a file of correspondence going back a long time. It is not a new problem. It is only right that we should recognise the Secretary of State's efforts. This is the House at its best. The will of the House has been expressed, and the Minister has responded to it. In those circumstances, I can best respond by saying that I shall support the Government tonight. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do likewise.

Mr. John Battle: We are interested to know precisely how the Secretary of State reached the present figure, other than by emergency pressure. 1 wish to put to him some details which may seem to be a side issue, but which are crucial for working out the figure.
On 24 January, during a debate on residential homes instigated by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security pointed out:
The national limits are not rates, but maximum allowances towards fees. In addition, we provide an allowance for personal expenses or pocket money … I must emphasise that it has never been the policy of this Government—nor could it be the policy of any Government—to undertake to meet all fees charged by homes, however high they may be. We set the limits with due regard not only to the interests of the residents and the homes concerned, but also to the interests of the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 24 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 1028-9.]
I remind the Secretary of State that he may like to have a conversation with the Secretary of State for the Environment. In precisely that context, the housing benefit legislation means that there is no limit on the rents that private landlords can charge people on income support and housing benefit and the amounts that must be repaid to those private landlords.

Mr. Newton: This is about the third time that the lion. Gentleman has made that point. He is wrong. There are powers to restrict the payment of housing benefit where the rent officer judges that it is an excessive rent—I do not wish to be held to the exact words, but no doubt I can get further advice—and they are often used.

Mr. Battle: The Secretary of State identifies the exact problem, because the words are crucial. If he checks the legislation, he will see that the words are not "excessive rents" but "market rents". I accept that this point is somewhat to the side of this debate, but we put this question during the housing debate. The amount depends on what the capital values are, because that may blow the budget of the Department of Social Security sky high. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that fact.

Mr. Newton: I shall try to avoid intervening again, because I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Frankly, this is a slight side-step to the debate. I am told


by that process of curious osmosis by which information reaches Ministers in these circumstances that the words used are rents "which are unreasonably high".

Mr. Battle: We shall watch with interest what happens in the private rented sector and how much housing benefit is paid out by the DSS for rents that are excessive in the terms that the Government have laid out in their legislation to remove controls on rents. Without the controls, obviously the Government are in some difficulty.
I tabled a question to the Secretary of State asking "what regulations govern the administration and use of the pocket money element in the board-and-lodging allowance". The reply stated:
Applicable amounts payable for persons in independent residential care and nursing homes are prescribed by Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, as amended. They include an amount in respect of personal expenses which is at present £10·05 each week. The regulations do not prescribe how that allowance is to be used, as this is a matter for the claimant."—{Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 123.]
The difficulty is that the money never gets to the claimants because the allowance is deducted by the costs of the place at which they reside.
I received a letter from a Leeds constituent, who said that she wanted to write about
the case of my Mother-in-law, who will be ninety-seven in May, and is living in a Residential Home in … Leeds.
It was the only Home available, at the time she needed to be taken care of, and there are only three ladies residing there as the person in charge cannot accommodate any more, but it is registered.
The two other ladies residing there do get a little pocket money, as they share a room, but when Mother went there, there was only a single room, and was more expensive, so therefore she was not entitled to any pocket money. The fee then was £140-00 per week. Last year at the pension rise, we thought she would be entitled to a bit of money then—but no —the fee went up to £150-00—therefore Mother was entitled to no pocket money again. This year I expect will be the same…
We have to provide Mother with Pocket Money and clothing, which has to include hairdressing and chiropody.
Page 19 of chapter 14 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans" for the Department of Social Security, under the heading "Proposals for changes to benefits to long-term sick and disabled people", states:
the hospital personal expenses allowance for single people receiving income-related benefits will increase from £8·70 to £11·75. This will benefit pensioners and other single people as well as sick and disabled people.
Why has the pocket allowance for those in residential homes not been increased? More seriously, what guarantee do we have that the pocket money will not become part of the cost of board and lodging, so that in practice the money is never recieved?
It is for the Secretary of State to say clearly that the money that his Department has earmarked for pocket money will not be absorbed in fees. If that were to happen, it would mask hidden costs. I accept that the Department says in good faith that the money is for the use of clients, to be used as they wish. That is why it should not be salted away to cover the cost of fees. May we have an assurance that the money allocated for personal pocket expenses will be used for that purpose and not for board and lodging costs, thereby appearing to reduce those costs?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the clearly expressed view of the

House two weeks ago. It could not be right to cover the costs of people who will in future enter residential care and nursing homes and not cover the costs of those already in such homes. I am glad that my right hon. Friend recognised the anomaly and corrected it. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) said and I say to my right hon. Friend: well done, you fought a good battle and you won.

Mr. Kirkwood: Welcome though the provisions in the new clause are, they do not go far enough, for the reasons that have been stated. The people operating residential homes, certainly in my area, face a difficult problem in trying to bridge the gap between a shortage of funds now and the time when tonight's announcement will bear fruit.
The Secretary of State was candid enough to say that it will take time before the assessments are studied and the results work through to local authorities. In terms of the solution that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced, that is bound to be so, but he should be more forthcoming by saying how long it will take him to act, should he find that the evidence reaching him is not to his liking. Should the evidence show that a need exists, will it take weeks, months or years before he will be able to remedy the situation?
It could be a year or 18 months before the Government get round to taking action. Should that be the case, many residential homes in my area might go out of business. It would not be a question of evicting some elderly residents already in homes. That would be bad enough. Some residential homes are unable to make ends meet now.
I am thinking of homes in my constituency which look after the needs of the demented elderly, a difficult group for whom to care. Some nursing homes do an excellent job in looking after their needs, and considering that they are already finding it difficult to make ends meet, one wonders how long it will take for the extra assistance to work its way through. They already say that it will take time before the community care provisions, through local authorities, come on stream. The help to come from the Government's new proposals, if there is any, may take 18 months or two years to appear, and that gap is worrying nursing homes.
I would be more sanguine about the new clause and the prospects of the help that we are told it will bring if the Secretary of State could be more reassuring in that respect. I accept that it is a move forward. If the new clause is to mean anything, the Government will find themselves being forced to use it heftily if we are to meet the difficulties that are being faced by many residents and home operators.

Sir David Price: I did not speak on the new clause last week, for the very simple reason that the Select Committee on Social Services, of which I am a member, had produced a short report, which I hope assisted the House in coming to the conclusion that it came to. As to the gap between what people receive in income support and the costs that they have to meet, we know that there are quite substantial regional variations. This was identified by the Committee, and in this regard we are completely at one with my right hon. Friend. There can be variations even within a region, depending on whether a home is owned outright or is being paid for through a mortgage.
We welcome my right hon. Friend's response. However as has been said by several hon. Members, there will still


be a shortfall. In this regard, I am particularly concerned about nursing homes. As one or two hon. Members have pointed out, nursing home costs have gone up rather more substantially because of the improved pay for nurses. It seems to me that there is a very simple solution. This suggestion was not in the Committee's report— simply offer it personally. Where this difficulty arises, especially in the intervening months—before implementation of my right hon. Friend's proposals—the district health authority should be allowed to top up. Often we are talking about £30 or £40 a week. My understanding is that, under Treasury rules, the district health authority could take over total responsibility and pay the lot, but is not allowed to top up. In the past, I had correspondence with the Department of Health and Social Security about this matter. As the DHSS has now been split into two Departments, what I am suggesting should not give rise to any ill feeling. The difference between the amount of the top-up and what it would cost the district health authority to take a person into a geriatric ward is very substantial indeed. I shall not detain the House by giving figures to demonstrate cost variations, as I can see that my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend are both very aware of them.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should observe wryly that, whereas two weeks ago, as the Social Security Secretary, I got drawn somewhat unexpectedly into the debate on a health Bill, my hon. Friend is now seeking to draw my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health into a social security Bill. I am happy to leave my right hon. and learned Friend to consider my hon. Friend's proposal.

Sir David Price: My right hon. Friend will know that, whatever happens in Whitehall, health care in the real world is a continuum. I defended the Government's decision to deal with care in the community and the National Health Service in the same Bill. So we are on the same side. Of course, the common enemy is Treasury rules. I refer not to the best use of public resources, but simply to the fact that the Treasury operates on the basis of its own liturgical rules, rather than on the basis of cost-effectiveness. In terms of cost-effectiveness, we could avoid difficulties over individual cases where the district health authority is willing to take up the difference. Under the existing nursing homes legislation, the district health authority is responsible for inspecting homes, so it knows them. Therefore, the fears of some of us about excessive charges and about care being inadequate are dealt with already because homes are registered and inspected by the DHA.
I leave that thought with my right hon. Friend. I am delighted that he accepted the Select Committee's proposal that there should be detailed studies of the variations in costs, with a view to producing a more coherent formula. The Committee identified the problem, and I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. But the problem will not go away; it is with us for keeps. The higher the rate of inflation, the more urgent is the problem. While I am thankful for my right hon. Friend's immediate response, I have to say—though I do not want to sound depressing —that this is not the end of the story.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I want to ask the Minister two specific questions about the announcement that he made on the new clause. He may remember that I

raised with him on Second Reading the plight of war widows in nursing homes and residential homes. Although a constituent of mine had received the extra £40 from the Government, and although a promise had been made in the Chamber that it would be untouched by any decisions about income support, she lost all the £40 increase in her war widows' pension because of the regulations on income support. I am pleased to tell the Minister that the Department agreed to disregard the £40 and to increase her income support to match her nursing home fee. I do not know how that happened, but is it now a general rule? From now on, will the £40 given to war widows be disregarded in calculations for income support?

Mr. Newton: The point is so specific that it is probably sensible for me to respond to it immediately. I am a little puzzled by what the hon. Lady has said. The increase of £40 is not to be paid to pre-1973 war widows until next month. Certainly her constituent could not have it in January. I can assure the hon. Lady that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said at the time, and as I have subsequently carried into regulations, the whole of the £40 is to be disregarded for the purposes of all income-related benefits. It will not apply to housing benefit, income support or family credit, although probably that will not apply to war widows.

Ms. Primarolo: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. I am sure that he appreciates that many nursing homes notify in advance increases in charges and that the increases normally take effect in April to coincide with increases in benefit. I agree that war widows' pensions should be protected. I want to know how the shortfall in fees will be made up to ensure that the increase in pension will not be incorporated in the fee.
My second point relates to the fact that people are on income support because they have no other income. I see the Minister shaking his head. Income support is paid to top up income to make payments to nursing homes. In many instances the top-up of income support does not equal the cost of the nursing home fees. That point has been made frequently in the House.
Even taking into account the Minister's announcement, in Avon there will still be a shortfall of £15, £20, £25, or £30, depending on the location of the home. Will the Minister explain the position to the House so that we may tell our constituents who still have a shortfall what they should do about it? If the welfare state cannot act as a safety net for the most vulnerable and needy in society, what does it exist for? Perhaps the Minister will tell us how his Department intends the shortfall to be made up in the interim, because many people will still not have enough money to pay their nursing home fees.

Mrs. Peacock: I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. Two weeks ago, like many of my colleagues, I went into the Opposition Lobby on an amendment. I greatly appreciate what my right hon. Friend said. Obviously, he listened carefully to many of his Back-Bench colleagues on that occasion.
I have one or two worries. Some hon. Members may have never seen anyone suffering from Alzheimer's disease. I think that it is the most frightening thing that could happen to an individual. Sufferers need special care and their families cannot cope. It is not a matter of them putting Grannie or Grandpa away. It is impossible to cope with someone in that state.


In Yorkshire there are some specialised homes that can care for such people. Nursing homes send people out and say, "We can't cope," and we know that there have been examples of that. The specialised homes are residential care homes, not nursing homes. Because they provide 24-hour specialised care, their costs are high. A young family living in my constituency have such a problem. The husband, who is a bus driver, is working all the hours God sends to raise an extra £35 per week to pay for his mother-in-law, who needs to be cared for, and they have three young children. We spend so much money on benefits that it cannot be right that such a family should be excluded and have to find the amount somehow or another. Will the Minister consider that carefully? I fear that that old lady will end up out on the street when her family cannot provide £35 or that they will have to make their children do without shoes to provide it. Residential care and nursing homes do not incur such huge costs.
There is also a problem when pensioners, who are often in their early 60s, and on their own, have to try to provide for one or two parents who are in their 90s and live in residential care homes. Those pensioners do not have the money to pay. One lady brought her bank statement to me, and she had 22p left in the bank. She needs to find £45 to pay for her father, who is 92.
There must be provision in the system to help such people this week and next week, but we have not found it yet. I appreciate that the increases in August were a tremendous help, and that the rules that come into effect next April will help, but the families that I have described are at their wits' end. That may result in nervous breakdowns caused by worry about their parents.
Given the amount of money that we spend, we should be able to help such people in the interim period. I plead with the Minister to consider specific cases or to give an idea of what hon. Members could do to help those who are waiting to see what he says tonight.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I appreciate the announcement tonight, and I think that it is a major step forward. I cannot imagine why Conservative Members, who came into the Opposition Lobby to vote a couple of weeks ago and who find that they have something to be thankful for tonight, do not come into our Lobby more often. It seems to have been a worthwhile exercise.
Like other hon. Members who represent coastal constituencies, I became aware a few years ago of the extraordinary proliferation of nursing homes. Out of curiosity, I tabled a written question 18 months ago asking how levels of income support had increased. As far as I know, that was the first time that it emerged that residential care had become a billion-pound industry—it had gone from £82 million in 1979 to £1 billion 10 years later. That spiral cannot simply go on indefinitely. We must bear in mind that it was public policy to create that new industry—private residential homes—and to concentrate so many resources in that kind of accommodation, and into income support payments for people in them.
The tragedy was that, having created that huge expenditure, the Government took fright. The pace of increase in income support has not been sufficient to keep up with the costs of the homes which were created during the great boom period. The Minister has to live with that reality now, as future Ministers will have to.
The Minister would do well to listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who seemed to speak a lot of sense on the subject. The new clause still has a blanket approach, although it is now within local authority areas. The problem is that we are talking not about problems arising out of what is charged in a town or a district health board area, but about individuals and specific homes. I am sure that Conservative Members will find out as they go along that the wonder of the poll tax is that one discovers that one is not dealing with categories of 1 million people or 100,000 people; every case throws up different circumstances and different individual problems to be dealt with.
10.30 pm
Let me describe the kind of problems that I have come across in my constituency. An elderly person is living quite happily in a home until it is taken over by another company, which decides that it does not want to operate a run-of-the-mill home on basic charges but, rather, an up-market de luxe nursing home. The prices go shooting up. The elderly person, who has previously been able to meet the cost of his care, suddenly finds that there has been a large increase in the amount for which he is being asked. Would the new clause meet that happenstance? The new cost of the home might be out of the normal order of things in that particular area and the general rate that the local authority applied in the area might not cover the case of a person caught by such a change of ownership.
Similarly, as the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) said, there are exceptional cases in which costs are higher because the level of nursing care is higher. Within one area—whether it is a local authority area or a district health authority area—a great range of circumstances may pertain.
That takes us back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said. The owners of the homes identify an average shortfall of about £40 per

person per week. At the most generous estimate, what the Minister proposes will go perhaps halfway towards meeting that shortfall. But everything is relative. For a poor person—a person who does not have extraneous income—it does not really matter whether the figure is £20 or £40 a week. It is a substantial shortfall, and if the person has no means to fill the gap, the problem remains the same.
I welcome the proposals that the Minister has announced—I am not being churlish about them—but the problem remains that people will set a level of charge and many of the clients will not be able to meet it. On the other hand, a blanket approach does not meet the problem either. It takes us back to the initial dilemma to which I referred—that the global sum just goes on increasing and in some cases all that one is doing is encouraging homes to increase charges, for a quality of service that is not necessarily provided.
Putting those two arguments together, it seems to me that there is a case for the flexibility for which the hon. Member for Eastleigh argued. That may be a big task; such a system may be difficult to administer. But it will mean that there will be an officer in each area looking at specific cases and the genuine human problems and trying to solve them case by case.
I am grateful for the money that has been awarded, which will come as a relief to many people. The new clause is a step in the right direction and a response to what the whole House voted for a fortnight ago. But the Minister will have to go further—and future Ministers will have to go further—to meet the specific cases to which the problem gives rise.

Sir George Young: I shall be brief, because there are other Conservative Members who deserve to be heard—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who spoke with such emotion on the subject only two weeks ago. Like other Conservative Members, two weeks ago I voted against the Government and for the all-party amendment. I did so reluctantly, although I make no apology for it, because unless we used the most powerful means available to Back Benchers—voting—there could be no guarantee that we should get a response.
Having said that, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has listened to the arguments and responded to the debate. In two weeks, which is a very short time scale for Whitehall, he has responded with the new clause before us today. He had to do that against a very difficult economic background. We have had a restrictive Budget, with the downward pressure on expenditure to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred. Against such an economic background, to negotiate this sum of money from the Treasury in such a short time was a genuine achievement, for which my right hon. Friend deserves full credit.
I am delighted with new clause 26, because it embraces the principle for which many of us spoke two weeks ago —using local authority contracts as the basis for income support. The new clause gives the Department the power to validate the price negotiated between the local authority and the home as the basis for income support, which is the right long-term solution.
There is no advantage in Opposition new clause 14, which is wholly bureaucratic—involving tribunals and adjudicating officers—by comparison with the Government's solution. My right hon. Friend mentioned


the time scale. If a local authority makes good progress this year and negotiates a series of contracts to come into effect in 1991, will my right hon. Friend's Department be able to use those contracts in setting the income support level in that local authority's area—or does he propose waiting until the system is nationally tested before allowing progress at a local level?
In the debate of two weeks ago, it was no part of the proposed new clause to insist on extra help being provided this year. Certainly I did not make that demand in my own speech. I regard as a bonus the additional assistance that my right hon. Friend announced tonight for nursing and residential care homes from August, which will help in cases where the shoe is pinching.
New clause 26 is an honourable response from an honourable man, and I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. Allen McKay: I ask the Secretary of State a straight question, and I hope that he will give a straight answer. Who pays? Although we are grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's announcement tonight, it must be seen as an exercise in damage limitation, being the minimum action required to satisfy the Secretary of State's right hon. and hon. Friends.
The problem remains this year, as it will next year, that there is a gap between the amount charged and what can be claimed. Who will pay the difference? In some cases, it will be the relatives of the individual concerned—but often they themselves will be pensioners. Increasing life expectancy means that many residents of nursing and residential homes are aged 85 or 90, and have relatives who are themselves pensioners and unable to meet any additional costs. In other cases, relatives have moved from the area—which may be the reason why an individual was placed in a home in the first place.
In both the Local Government and Housing Bill and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, responsibility is ultimately placed in the hands of the local authority, which will have to undertake a case study and determine, through the officer concerned, what form of care is to be provided—care in the community or care in the home. So in many cases the local authority will have to pay the difference if the Department refuses to do so. I hope that Conservative Members will think about that when they vote tonight.
There is little use taking a local authority to task or placing limitations on its level of poll tax if at the same time the Government deliberately load it with the responsibility for meeting the gap between charges and the money available from central Government. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister for Social Security undertake to hold consultations with local authorities, and confirm that funding will be available for them to make up any difference?
The Government have brought the problem upon themselves. When they came to power, they decided to encourage private nursing and residential care homes, which was fair enough. But the bill has to be paid, and instead of ducking, weaving, dodging and bobbing we should be honest and above board. Let us ensure that payment stops finally with the Government of the day.
We must care for those who find themselves in homes, so let us eradicate the problems, worries and concerns that

face those who are in homes and their relatives. So many families are bending over backwards to try to find the charges. I believe that we can pull together within a proper system. It is right and proper that responsibility should rest with local government, but central Government should ensure that adequate funding is available.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: The new clause comes as a great reassurance and considerable relief to those who have been campaigning for such a provision for the past year. The question asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House is, "What happens to the existing shortfall?" I was concerned that strong pressure to evict would be the prospect if action were not taken. If those who run the homes had been faced with a long-term problem and had felt that no endeavour was being made to match the level of benefits to the level of reasonable charges, they would have had every incentive to evict quickly. Immediate relief means that they are receiving more money than hitherto, and that should help.
The homes that face the difficult problem of servicing a large capital investment will be assisted if, in addition to the generous interim measures, there is a fall in interest rates. I feel that there is some hope for home owners. I feel also that proprietors will be much less pushed to evict than they would have been if the measures in the new clause had not been brought forward. The shortfall is of less significance than it was. A perpetual bleakness has been removed.
Does the new clause provide a sufficient guarantee? I am reassured, first, because account is taken of both nursing and residential homes. There was much speculation that we would be confronted with action only in the nursing home sector. Secondly, the new clause provides that the Secretary of State shall, not may, take into account reasonable levels of charges. There is now, or will be, a clear obligation on the Secretary of State.
Two questions remain, however, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Does he accept that the new clause will be a cause for future action and that it is not merely an adornment of the statute book? Secondly, does he accept that future action must commence as quickly as possible after April 1991 if we are not to find, once more, that there is pressure to evict?
I find new clause 14 unacceptable because it places emphasis on adjudication officers. My right hon. Friend has persuaded me that that is not the right approach. As for the manuscript amendment, of which I have had sound if not sight, it provides the blank cheque that we have tried to aviod. If my right hon. Friend will give the assurance that he regards the new clause as a programme for action and not merely a reassuring sop, I think that we may trust him. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to go with him tonight.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I welcome what the Government have done. My concern about shortfall and future action was expressed clearly by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe).
I do not believe that the new clause is sufficient to deal with the problems that have been brought to my notice. Half the constituency of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) was joined with half of my constituency for a long time—Batley and Morley—and,


therefore, we share the problems with former mill towns in the west riding. I should like to express the concern of my constituents.
The new clause refers to "prescribed" bodies. I declare an interest because I am on the governing board of a Salvation Army home not far from the House. My mother was there for a long time. She was a war widow and received war widows' pension and attendance allowance but not income support.
Over the years, I have learned about the expertise of the Salvation Army. It does marvellous work for down and outs—it will do such work tonight in London—and it has built homes and altered old buildings. Before being on the governing board, I was not aware of the expertise and professionalism of its staff.
Whatever information the Department of Social Security receives from local authorities, the Salvation Army could provide, within weeks, a detailed report on the problems experienced in its homes. Such a report would cover a good cross-section, because the people in its homes come from a variety of backgrounds.
The letters that I have received and the people who have come to see me cause me to worry that the sums being offered by the Government are not sufficient. I have received letters from people on low incomes whose aged parents are in homes. They are concerned that their parents will be evicted because they cannot afford to make the payments. I want to check in the next few weeks what difference the money the Government have offered will make to them. Will there still be a problem of eviction because my constituents cannot afford to pay?
I have a constituent—a former nurse—who runs an old people's home with her husband. They are devoted to their patients and make only enough money to cover their incomes. I want to check that next year they will not lose money.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) said, we are debating not structures or statistics but the dignity of people living in old people's homes. If in the next few weeks the Minister is told by hon. Members or the Salvation Army that his figures are wrong, will he be able to act on that information in advance of 1991?
I suspect that we are all in for a surprise. Hon. Members will receive letters and their constituents will say to them, "Thank you for what you have done. We are not looking a gift horse in the mouth, but frankly it is not enough."

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I shall be extremely brief.
I welcome new clause 26 and the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I suggest that the success of the arrangements between now and April 1991 will depend not only on the generosity of the Department but on the restraint and tolerance of the owners of residential care homes. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend said that we can look forward to such success.
The advantage of new clause 26 is that after April 1991 it will not leave the cost of residential care open ended. Although two weeks ago and tonight our attention has been directed to residents who depend on income support, those who manage to pay their own fees must meet the increased costs that inevitably follow when income support is raised.
New clause 26 meets the objections that I raised two weeks ago. We should be grateful for the tolerance of home owners who will now have a better opportunity to care for our constituents.

Mr. Newton: I wish to make two crisp points. First, I am grateful to hon. Members for their response to my proposals. Secondly, such is my mellow frame of mind that I shall even co-operate with the Opposition, who wish me to sit down a little early so that they may vote on their amendment rather than on the new clause. I shall respond as best I can to some of the points raised during the debate.
I say to all hon. Members, but especially to the hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), that I do not think that the complexities of the position have been fully recognised in the debate. I want to explain the difficulty that I or any other Minister would face in coming forward with what would be regarded as a complete solution. As I said in our previous debate on this matter, there are two categories of shortfall with these homes. One is involuntary—where people cannot meet the charge being levied. That is the case that concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and others. The other category—there was a case in my constituency only last week—is where relatives use their freedom to top up what income support will buy because they wish to pay for more than the state can be expected to provide.
Indeed, many of the charitable bodies have said that they do not expect the full difference between income support and their costs to be met. It is important that that is understood. I am not suggesting that they have expressed satisfaction with the present limits, but they do not demand that the full gap should be met because it is specifically part of their policy to provide a standard of amenity and the like higher than they think it reasonable for the state to be expected to pay for. They view that as a legitimate use of their charitable funds.
I make that point only to illustrate the difficulties of pitching the figures at the right level. I am not in any way discounting the anxiety felt about the present level, to which I have sought to respond. Indeed, the increases are substantial. The debate has focused on what I shall do in August, but that should be linked with what I have already done, which will take effect next month—that is, £20 on nursing homes, £15 on residential care homes and, at the extreme,£25 for terminal illness limits.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) mentioned the Salvation Army. I am prepared to take into account evidence from that body or any other reputable source, as I sought to do in making my judgments today. I shall be looking for more and better evidence when I have to make a judgment next October about the uprating from next April.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that, even when not on the scale envisaged by the new clause, when information is available in advance of April 1991, I shall use it in making, my judgments at that time.
The only point that I need to make in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone is that it will be some time—I cannot give an exact time—after April 1991 before we have comprehensive information covering a range of local authorities and a range of homes and circumstances that would make it possible to activate the new clause. I assure her that I tabled it not as a cosmetic


adornment, but as a sign of the way in which I hope to move in the future when the information is available to enable me to act in that way.

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State says that his new clause is not intended to be cosmetic. What guarantee can he give us that as a result of his new clause there will be no evictions after April 1991? What action does he propose to take to prevent evictions before April 1991? He has not answered either of those questions.

Mr. Newton: The answer was given in the sensible remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone when she referred to the background to some of the anxieties about the future and about the present limits. As my hon. Friend acknowledged very fairly, on both those fronts my actions respond to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
I owe it to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to respond to his comment about pocket money. I have undertaken to eschew the phrase "pocket money". It is really personal expenses allowance.
The point about pocket money is not widely understood. The Department of Social Security cannot dictate how people use their pocket money. There is no question of the DSS allocating the personal expenses allowance to pay for residential home or nursing home charges. Some home owners set their charges at the expenses level above the income support rate. If I raised the income support rate, some owners—perhaps not many —would raise their charges to the same amount above the new income support rate. If I set it at £200 and the personal expenses element was £10, some owners would set the charge at £210. I cannot prevent that without controlling charges for homes or taking away an individual's right to spend personal expenses money as he or she wishes.
My colleagues who organise the business of the House have told me that, in order to fulfil my undertaking about voting that I gave at the outset of my speech, I should curtail my remarks now. I shall do that after expressing my gratitude for the support that my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members have expressed in a very reasonable and constructive way and for the outcome that we have achieved.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the new clause: to leave out "take into account" and insert
determine the amounts required to meet the costs of providing such accommodation of a suitable standard by reference to".—[Mr. Meacher.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 326.

Division No. 145]
[10.57 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Allen, Graham
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Alton, David
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Donald
Battle, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Beckett, Margaret


Armstrong, Hilary
Beggs, Roy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Beith, A. J.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bell, Stuart


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt Hon Tony





Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Home Robertson, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hood, Jimmy


Blair, Tony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Blunkett, David
Hoyle, Doug


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hume, John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Illsley, Eric


Buckley, George J.
Janner, Greville


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Callaghan, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kilfedder, James


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kirkwood, Archy


Cartwright, John
Lamond, James


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Leighton, Ron


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clay, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Clelland, David
Litherland, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Livingstone, Ken


Cohen, Harry
Livsey, Richard


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Loyden, Eddie


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Crowther, Stan
McCartney, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cummings, John
Mcfall, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McGrady, Eddie


Cunningham, Dr John
Mckay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dalyell, Tam
McKelvey, William


Darling, Alistair
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mcwilliam, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Madden, Max


Dewar, Donald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Doran, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Martlew, Eric


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meacher, Michael


Eadie, Alexander
Meale, Alan


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'L &amp; Bute)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fatchett, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan, Rhodri


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morley, Elliot


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mooris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fisher, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
Mowlam, Marjorie


Flynn, Paul
Mullin, Chris


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Murphy, Paul


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foster, Derek
O'Brien, William


Fraser, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fyfe, Maria
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Galloway, George
Patchett, Terry


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Pendry, Tom


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


God man, Dr Norman A.
Prescott, John


Gordon, Mildred
Primarolo, Dawn


Gould, Bryan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Randall, Stuart


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Redmond, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Harman, Ms Harriet
Richardson, Jo


Haynes, Frank
Robertson, George


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Rooker, Jeff


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Henderson, Doug
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hinchliffe, David
Rowlands, Ted


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Ruddock, Joan


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Salmond, Alex






Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis


Sheerman, Barry
Vaz, Keith


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wallace, James


Short, Clare
Walley, Joan


Sillars, Jim
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N.


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Snape, Peter
Wilson, Brian


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, Jimmy


Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Straw, Jack



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Ray Powell.


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Allason, Rupert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Amos, Alan
Colvin, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashby, David
Cope, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Couchman, James


Atkins, Robert
Cran, James


Atkinson, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Curry, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Baldry, Tony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Day, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Devlin, Tim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dunn, Bob


Benyon, W.
Dykes, Hugh


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eggar, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Emery, Sir Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evennett, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Boswell, Tim
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Favell, Tony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bowis, John
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Forth, Eric


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bright, Graham
Franks, Cecil


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Freeman, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fry, Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, George


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Chris
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gorst, John


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Gow, Ian





Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Major, Rt Hon John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mans, Keith


Gregory, Conal
Maples, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marland, Paul


Grist, Ian
Marlow Tony


Ground, Patrick
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hague, William
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hannam, John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mellor, David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Meyer, Sir Antony


Harris, David
Miller, Sir Hal


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Iain


Hawkins, Christopher
Miscampbell, Norman


Hayes, Jerry
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mitchell, Sir David


Hayward, Robert
Moate, Roger


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Mooris, M (N'hampton S)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hind, Kenneth
Moss, Malcolm


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Holt, Richard
Mudd, David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Antony


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Neubert, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Norris, Steve


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hunter, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Page, Richard


Irvine, Michael
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Irving, Sir Charles
Patnick, Irvine


Jack, Michael
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Jackson, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Janman, Tim
Pawsey, James


Jessel, Toby
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Portillo, Michael


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Price, Sir David


Key, Robert
Raffan, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Redwood, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shaw, Sir Micheal (Scarb')


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shelton, Sir William


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)






Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Trotter, Neville


Squire, Robin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Stanbrook, Ivor
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Viggers, Peter


Steen, Anthony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Stern, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stevens, Lewis
Walden, George


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Ward, John


Stokes, Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Sumberg, David
Watts, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wells, Bowen


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wheeler, Sir John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wiggin, Jerry


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilkinson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thorne, Neil
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Thurnham, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)



Tracey, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Trippier, David
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

COMMUNITY CHARGE BENEFIT

'In section 22A of the 1986 Act,
(a) at the beginning of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to the provisions of subsection (IA) below,";
(b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) For the purpose of determining such entitlement or such amount in any such case, the amounts of capital prescribed under section 22(6) and (7) above shall be doubled.".'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: (b), at the beginning insert—
'(1) In section 22 of the 1986 Act, after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(6A) Regulations shall make provision for entitling any person to housing benefit in the form of a community charge rebate for any period in respect of which he would have been so entitled if the amount prescribed under subsection (6) above during that period had been £16,000.
(2)'.
(a), in new subsection (IA), leave out '22(6) and (7)' and insert '22(7)'.

Mr. Meacher: It speaks for itself that, since 3.30 pm, we have had seven and a half hours under a Government guillotine, yet only now do we reach the first Opposition new clause. The full absurdity of the Government's guillotine is shown by the fact that we have been allocated the next 47 minutes to debate seven Opposition new clauses and amendments.
The first concerns the poll tax, and I have little doubt that it will take the full time until 12 o'clock—indeed, the debate could have gone considerably beyond that time. Everyone realises that the Chancellor's proposed concession in the Budget to alleviate poll tax bills has turned out rather less of a sweetener and more of a confidence trick, for two main reasons. The first is that the proposed formula will mean that most pensioners and others will get little or nothing extra in relief. The other is that the Chancellor simply forgot about Scotland and its right to equivalent relief over the past year. The first objection is fully redressed by new clause 1 and I invite support for it from hon. Members on both sides of the House who agree with the statement yesterday by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen):
It"—
referring to the poll tax—
needs to be reconsidered in respect of the abatements made and the effectiveness of the transitional arrangements".— [Official Report, 27 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 243.]
On the first point, I submit that we propose precisely the kind of reconsideration for which the right hon. Gentleman asked.
11.15 pm
Under the Government's proposal, most people will find when they come to claim that they will get little or nothing extra. The reason is the rule on tariff income: for every £250 in savings over £3,000, they are deemed, however unrealistically, to receive an income of £1 a week, and that reduces their poll tax rebate by 15p a week. Let me give an example of a pensioner who has just less than £16,000 in savings—presumably, the type of person that this "concession" was designed to assist. The net effect of all the deductions is that his or her poll tax rebate is reduced by £7·65 a week. I am sure that hon. Members will not closely follow these figures, but I assure them that they have been carefully checked and I am certain that they are correct. As benefit is calculated on a maximum 80 per cent. of the poll tax, this equates with a poll tax bill of £497 a year. In other words, that pensioner, who is clearly intended to be a main beneficiary of the great poll tax concession, will not get a penny unless he or she lives in one of four local authority areas in England and Wales —those with a poll tax above £497 a year. So much for the Budget special offer!
Hon. Members will agree that many pensioners will be bitterly disappointed when they realise that the increase in the capital cut-off allows them merely to fill in a form and then have a zero rebate calculated. It is disgraceful for the Government to raise hopes as they did in the Budget and then dash them when people discover that they will get only tiny amounts of aid to offset their massive poll tax bills.
The Government's error has been in raising the upper capital limit but not the lower limit. If the lower threshold at which deductions start had been doubled to £6,000—which is what one might expect—the value of the concession would have been greatly increased. That is precisely why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled the new clause. It effects exactly that purpose.
Only a few days ago, in Committee, the Minister declared that a limit of £16,000 for couples was on the high side. I am glad that, after a presumably deafening outcry from the Tory heartlands, he has decided to recant. For the Government to raise the upper limit but not the lower one can only reflect one of two things—either it shows


incompetence in that they intended pensioners to get a much bigger gain from this concession, but they bungled the operation, or it shows cynicism, in that they knew well that most of the concession would be diminished or even extinguished in practice, but they wanted the political credit of at least the appearance of making a generous offer.
I leave it to the Minister to say which of the two motivations applied. I do not know, but whichever it was, it is now in the interest of equity and reasonableness to change the formula, and on those grounds I seek support for the new clause.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I, too, am keen to sort out the anomalies on this issue. I am not sure why he wants to raise the amount of capital that is disregarded, because that would create further anomalies by making people with those amounts of capital have their benefit assessed on the basis of too low an income for them.
At present, the problem is that people with high amounts of capital up to £16,000 have a notional income for DSS purposes which is way above their actual income because of attributing 20·8 per cent. interest to every extra £1,000 of savings above £3,000. That is the £1 per week per £250—being £52 a year per £250—which is £208 a year per £1,000, and that is 20·8 per cent. interest on every extra £1,000. The problem is—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I hope I may be allowed to complete this, and I promise not to intervene later.
The problem is that if one raises the lower limit, one is creating as big an anomaly at the bottom by assessing those people's benefit on an income which is lower than their real income. It would be better if the DSS scrapped the 20·8 per cent. interest on extra savings and stuck in annually, at uplift time, the actual interest available based on the best practice in the high street and by building societies, currently about 11 per cent. Putting it simply, if instead of the level being £1 per week per £250 it was 50p per week per £250, that would be available in every high street in Britain.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. I have always thought that the tariff rate of income which suggests that one has a 20 per cent. yield on one's investments must mean that one is getting some extremely good stockbroker advice, and I doubt whether such advice is available to those on income support.
The rate of 20 per cent. is absurd. I would not care to say what the rate should be, but I would have thought that it should be something less than half that rate, and then there would be the offsetting effect, and the damage in extinguishing the right to benefit would be that much less.
That is a separate point and, while I do not dispute the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument, I hope he will agree that until the DSS makes that change, it is important to raise the lower threshold. We cannot tonight change the tariff rate of income, but the way to ameliorate the effect would be to raise the lower threshold.
Because of the shortness of time, I will not dwell on amendment (b) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I understand, from what was said at Scottish Question Time today, that there is shortly to be a full statement on the matter from the Secretary of State for Scotland. My hon. Friends and I will he looking at that statement on three clear and

explicit criteria: the adequacy or otherwise of the extra funds that are made available; the ex gratia nature of the scheme; and how it will be ensured that those entitled receive payments retrospectively on a strictly comparable basis to those now made available in England and Wales.
The view that rebates to alleviate the full horrific force of the poll tax should be maximised is shared on both sides of the House. We do not know whether the formula enunciated by the Chancellor in his Budget was by accident or design, but we know that raising the upper capital limit and not the lower one has the counterproductive effect of extinguishing a large proportion of the relief that presumably was intended. On that basis, I hope that new clause 1, which corrects that error, will command approval in all parts of the House.

Mr. Hawkins: I said a moment ago that I would not speak again, because I was conscious of the guillotine, but I had not realised that no one else wanted to speak.
I greatly welcome the fact that the Chancellor responded to representations by raising the capital limit to almost £16,000. It is now important to get the DSS rule on the interest implied in the capital changed. Sympathetic as I am to what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is trying to achieve, I do not want to support the creation of another anomaly at the bottom end by assuming no interest on the first £3,000 or £6,000. That would be to underrate the income that those people with savings genuinely have. What I should like to see is a system that is neutral as between saving and not saving. The way to make the system neutral is to impute to savings the best-practice interest rate that a normal human being anywhere in Britain can earn on the high street.
By doing that, one would, for benefit purposes, be using a person's actual income from savings, added to his actual income from other sources, and comparing the resulting figure with the benefit tables to see whether he qualified for a rebate. I have drawn to the attention of Ministers the situation of a person with savings who, before the Budget, may have had an income one third lower than that of someone who did not save. A couple could have an income of just £100 a week, made up of retirement pension and interest on savings, and fail to qualify for a rebate. Yet a couple in my area, where the poll tax is £400, could have an income of £150 a week and qualify for the rebate, so long as their income was not derived from savings. A couple with savings living on £100 a week fail to qualify, yet a couple who have not saved but whose income is 50 per cent. higher do qualify. That is a ridiculous anomaly. It is a massive penalty on savings—much too great to put right.
While I support the Opposition's intentions, I have to point out that raising the lower limit would create anomalies similar to those that would arise from playing with the upper limit without changing the interest rate. I should like the Minister to consider a move to a neutral system—a system that would not impose a penalty on savers.
Of course, I do not expect a considered response tonight. The way to achieve what I have in mind is to impute to capital the interest rate that can actually be achieved on the high street. Magically, at the moment, there is the lovely convenience in that, instead of being £1 a week per £250 of savings, which is the current rule, it


should be 50p a week per £250 of savings. There is an over-estimate of precisely 100 per cent. What I am suggesting would put the whole matter to rights.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I shall be very brief. It was strange that the Minister should indicate from a sedentary position his intention to speak at the end of the debate. Many hon. Members, including myself, would have liked to hear an immediate response to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in his opening speech. This is an important debate, and I am surprised at the course that the Minister is adopting.
The case that the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) has made has considerable merit, and is worthy of consideration. Of course, it is not relevant to this new clause. Many constituents have written to ask me where they might get the rate of interest that is used as the notional figure when the DSS is calculating benefit. The hon. Member's case should be pursued and hopefully it will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Having listened to the Chancellor's Budget statement last week, I think it would have benefited more people if he had increased the £3,000 limit to £6,000 rather than doubled the £000 to £16,000. There is considerable merit in the new clause. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and say that the Government are prepared to accept the new clause.

Mr. David Nicholson: I listened carefully to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) and by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). On examining the matter, I think that we should proceed on the basis of real figures in the market place.
Shortly after the Chancellor's excellent concession in the Budget of the increase in the savings limit, I tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking what action he was taking to vary the tapers in calculating housing benefit and community charge concessions. The reply was that no change would be made in the tapers. That may be all right in regard to the community charge because the tapers are extremely low and one loses benefit slowly in relation to increases in income. But I believe that the tapers for housing benefit are much more fierce.
Obviously the Government cannot deal with the matter in the debate, but in due course we should be given exemplification of the rebates that might be available in relation to various levels of income and capital so that we can pass the information to our constituents. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary for the written answer last autumn, which set out the income levels on which rebates were available. I found the information extremely useful when replying to queries from constituents. All hon. Members want to help their constituents as much as possible to maximise the rebates that they may get in relation to the community charge, housing benefit and other benefits.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will pay serious attention to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins). It would be a strange irony if, after a Budget

which not only contained the concession of increasing the permitted amount of capital but which introduced specific savings schemes, we should persist with the notion that for every £ 250 of capital a person has he should lose £1 a week. We have seen the strengthening of the PEP scheme and the proposed introduction of the TESSA scheme. Those schemes are directed entirely towards the type of people whom we are talking about. We are trying to encourage those people to save. It is a cruel irony if people who have saved over the years find themselves taxed at a penal rate on their capital. I hope that my right hon. Friend will think seriously about the point.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Those of us from Scotland are labouring under a great difficulty because we have not had any statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland on how he intends to disburse the £4 million ex gratia payment that was announced last week. It was not announced in the House. As I understand it, it was announced at a hastily called press conference. We are not sure whether it was a Lobby meeting or a formal press conference.
In Scotland there has been a great deal of consternation ever since about the method of handling that announcement. But here we are tonight and the Secretary of State for Scotland is "semi-detached" from the rest of us. He is not sitting on the Front Bench, where he could respond to invitations to intervene and to put the record straight. He is developing a rather shy attitude.
The chairman of the Tory party in Scotland, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), paid a fleeting visit to the Chamber and then beat it as fast as he could. That is not characteristic of him. He is normally up front, arguing vociferously for Government policy. I am now told that he is up the back somewhere, rather than on the Front Bench where he should be.
Our other difficulty is that we do not really know what the Government's attitude is, because each time they touch the poll tax some sort of change or a semi-U turn takes place. They would be well-advised to take on board the message contained in new clause 1, moved by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). The Government are only just beginning to understand many of the problems that are developing with the poll tax south of the border that people north of the border have understood for a considerable time. When the Chancellor made his statement about poll tax rebates in the Budget I thought that it was a very strange thing to do. That statement on the upper limit of savings for rebates had absolutely nothing to do with the Budget. It was not a Finance Bill measure, and it is interesting that the legislation will come as secondary legislation from the Department of Social Security. Therefore, one can only assume that he included the measure in the Budget speech to gain political benefit at a time that looked pretty bad for the Conservative party. The great problem, if one engages in a con trick without thinking it through, is that one has to live with the consequences. I shall tell the Minister for Social Security of some of the consequences.
An old lady constituent of mine visited me at my office in Ibrox in Glasgow. She does not have any money in the bank, but with her pension and the pension that she obtains from her husband's work she is above the limit for any rebate on the poll tax and therefore pays the full amount. After a discussion with her family and her


neighbours she came to me and said, "If they are going to give folk with £16,000 in the bank a rebate on the poll tax, then why don't I get a rebate, as I've got no money in the bank?" The logic was that she thought she must get a rebate. She was going to pay another instalment of the poll tax, but did not do so until she had had a chat with me because she was convinced that justice had to be done. She said, "I do not have £16,000. Why should I be paying the full tax? Surely I'm entitled to a rebate." She was astonished, scandalised and angry when I explained to her that it did not matter whether she had money in the bank; her income carried her above the line and there would be no rebate.
Then I met someone else who assumed that because he has more than £8,000 in the bank—but not as much as £16,000 —he was automatically guaranteed the full rebate. When I explained the situation, there was even greater anger. Such folk read the Chancellor as they were meant to read him on that particular day. They understood that a massive concession was coming from the Government and that they should be applauding their television screens. Then the cold light of reality struck some days later and they found that there was not a penny piece of help in it for them.
I am addressing my remarks to Conservative Back Benchers and not to the Government because, from the experience of recent weeks, it seems that the Government will respond only to pressure from them. Conservative Members might think that their crisis on the poll tax is over. I noticed in one Scottish newspaper that the Secretary of State for Scotland is alleged to have told his Cabinet colleagues that the main pressure will be put on them when people learn the level of the poll tax, and that once the bills start dropping through the letter box the anger will start dropping off. That is not true. If he told his Cabinet colleagues that, he has misled them once again. Our experience in Scotland is that it is when the bills rattle through the letter box and people are forced to decide whether to pay and how much to pay that the anger starts.
The major problems for the Conservative party in England are yet to come. The sensible thing would be for Conservative Members to take a small step backwards, to listen carefully to what has been said on new clause 1 and to accept it as the first step towards a major reconstruction of local government finance in England and Scotland. No matter how much we tinker with the poll tax, it remains fundamentally flawed because it does not take account of people's ability to pay. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here. The message which was sent from Mid-Staffordshire, and which will be sent from Glasgow on Saturday —

Ms. Short: The alternative is Labour.

Mr. Sillars: If the hon. Lady is telling me that the roof tax is a sensible alternative to the poll tax, she and I will have to differ.

Ms. Short: Surely the lesson of Mid-Staffordshire is that the only alternative to the present Government is a Labour Government.

Mr. Sillars: Believe it or not, if we cannot win independence at the next election, I look forward to the day when we shall have a Labour Government instead of

a Tory Government in this place because I shall then have the pleasure of watching the Labour party trying to reconcile the contradictions in its policy —

Mr. Jimmy Hood: The hon. Gentleman will not be here to watch it.

Mr. Sillars: Whether I am here or watching it on television is immaterial. I recall a period when we had a Labour Government who were cutting the National Health Service, housing and education. How do Labour Members reconcile the policy of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, who goes around the City of London telling all those in the boardrooms that fundamentally nothing will change under a Labour Government, with Back-Bench Labour Members simultaneously telling people in housing, education and the Health Service that they will be able to allocate the additional resources? I reckon that 12 to 18 months of a Labour Government in power here will advance the cause of Scottish independence by a fair number of years.
I return to the message of Mid-Staffordshire. Of course, I accept that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) interprets it as she has. But I think that there is another important message for the Prime Minister from Mid-Staffordshire and from the great demonstration of non-payers of the poll tax in Glasgow this Saturday. It is quite simple: if the poll tax does not go, she will have to.

Mr. Scott: Perhaps I should explain that it seemed unnecessary for me to intervene twice in the debate. I felt that it was better to listen to the bulk of the arguments and then to respond, perhaps leaving the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen the last word in the debate. That seemed to be the most effective way in which to deal with the matter.
I think that we can all agree on one thing—we welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement that he intended to raise the upper capital limit for income support and family credit from £6,000 to £8,000 and the upper limits for community charge and housing benefit from £8,000 to £ 16,000 from April. It is worth reminding the House that the change means that 250,000 people will be helped at a cost, in all benefits, of £120 million. That cannot be regarded by anyone who takes a fair view of matters as anything other than a significant change.
In essence, the change was introduced to ensure that many people who save conscientiously throughout their lives should not be prevented from claiming help with community charge or with their rents, particularly in retirement. In fact, about two thirds of those who will be helped by this very welcome change announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be pensioners.
It was suggested that people having capital in excess of £10,000 will not benefit from those changes, but nothing could be further from the truth. We estimate that 70,000 extra benefit cases, affecting 100,000 individuals, will involve capital in excess of £10,000 and that the vast majority of them will concern pensioners. There are still gainers even among those having capital of between £14,000 and £16,000. We estimate that 15,000 people in that bracket, again mainly pensioners, will also gain. That should be the starting point for our consideration of new clause 1.


11.45 pm
The Opposition's new clause. which doubles upper and lower limits for couples only, should be rejected. We extended the upper capital limit for all claimants, and right hon. and hon. Members should be aware that the Opposition's new clause contains a serious anomaly. 1 take the example of a couple having capital greater than £8,000 and being entitled to community charge benefit. Under the Opposition's proposals, if one of them were to die, the surviving partner would not be entitled to benefit because the upper capital limit of £ 8,000 would be relevant when her benefit was reassessed_ It follows that new Clause I might deprive people of community charge benefit at a very vulnerable moment in their lives.
The Opposition make general points, but they should think through the practical effects of their proposals. In this case, a serious anomaly would result, with widows, for example, losing entitlement to community charge benefit in the circumstances I described.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: No. because I want to allow time for the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to respond.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) suggested that imputed interest should be taken into account rather than tariff income. That proposal would cause problems, and it would be difficult to administer. However, I am happy to discuss the implications of my hon. Friend's proposal with him to see whether those practical difficulties can be tackled. Obviously we want to monitor the results of different—

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

Mr. Scott: No, because I must—

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Then we shall vote against the Government.

Mr. Scott: I understand that, but the debate must end in 12 minutes. I said that I am perfectly prepared to discuss with my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak his proposals, but I assure him that they would present serious practical difficulties. If we can overcome them, I shall take his suggestions into account when we reconsider these matters in due course
The hon. Member for Oldham, West suggested that pensioners having capital of £16,000 will not benefit unless the community charge is greater than £9·75 per week.

Mr. Meacher: indicated dissent.

Mr. Scott: The effect of tariff income depends on other income of which the claimant is in receipt.

Mr. Meacher: The Minister could not have been listening. I did not cite a figure of £9·75 but one of ·7·65.

Mr. Scott: I am sorry if I misheard the hon. Gentleman. The fact remains that a pensioner aged over 75 with capital of £16,000 or other income of less than about £20 per week will still receive the maximum rebate. I repeat that about 15,000 pensioners having capital of between £14,000 and £16,.000 will still gain from the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) asked for examples of benefit entitlement. I am

only too willing to provide that information. If my hon. Friend will table a suitable question, I shall ensure that he receives examples of exemptions at different levels.
There is still widespread misunderstanding about the precise way in which tariff income operates. It is not true that the tariff income rule reduces benefit entitlement by the same, equal amount. Where a person's income is greater than the set applicable amount only 15p per week is deducted from maximum benefit for every £1 of weekly excess income over the applicable amount.
Hon Members have expressed concern about the interest applied by the tariff income. As I have said the benefit system has to be considered in totality. I shall give an example to the House. A person with tariff income of £25a week would not see benefit reduced by £25 a week_ The benefit would be reduced by 15 per cent. of £25 a which would be only £3·75 a week. That should be understood. It is being spread around the system that once a certain amount is exceeded there is a pound for pound reduction in benefit. That is not true. Only 15 per cent. is taken into account. I leave it to those on the Opposition Front Bench or Back Benches to speak.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am appalled by the Minister of State's approach. The debate is limited to 47 minutes and it is dear that as many Conservative Members as Opposition Members wish to question him. It would have been suitable and appropriate for him to respond immediately after my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) resumed his place. The Minister would then have had the time to allow his hon. Friends to intervene. I do not understand why he is so shy about being accountable to the House. He chose to intervene shortly before midnight to promise secret discussions —it seems that they are to take place behind closed doors — in an endeavour to shut up his right hon. and hon. Friends.
Conservative Members have cottoned on to the con of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether the percentages are 20·8, 20 or 15, those outside this place know that last week's Budget statement contained a con. Who are the 15,000 with £16,000 in the bank who will benefit? These people will have an ordinary income of less than £20 a week. Who is sitting on £16,000 with an income of less than £20 a week? We are talking of a total income of about £20 a week, not extra income.
I shall follow with interest the questions that are tabled over the next few months to ascertain what the DSS knows about these people. Did those in the DSS know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to say, or the consequences of it? Did they understand the effect of not raising the lower limit, and especially the effect of his statement in Scotland? If they did know, did they tell the Chancellor before he made his speech? The Minister of State must know that his Department is the repository of expertise on these matters. His officials know what is happening. The problem is —this became dear during a sitting of the Public Accounts Committee last year—that they do not tell Ministers unless Ministers ask.
We discovered that the effect of the housing benefit changes was known to all the officials. They said, "We never said anything about this, because the Ministers never asked us." The PAC took a dim view of the official who said that. The problem was that Ministers were not asking, What are the effects and the consequences of this change of policy?"


In this instance—let us concentrate on the doubling for poll tax for the moment— did Ministers ask the departmental officials what would be the effects, pitfalls and anomalies that would result from the change in policy? If Ministers do not put that question to their officials, they are not fit to be Ministers. The House knows that officials will not provide information freely unless they are asked to do so. That is a great worry to all hon. Members, and especially to members of Select Committees. I shall give way if the Minister wants to answer those questions. The House should be aware of the views of Ministers.

Mr. Scott: Before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his announcement, he discussed it with Ministers at the Department of Social Security. We welcome, as I believe does the whole House, his announcement on the increasing of the limits.
I respond to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) by asking some other questions. Does the Labour party welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to increase the limits? Does it accept that new clause 1 is incompetent and ineffective and contains anomalies? Does it accept that I am prepared to listen to my hon. Friends and to others who want to discuss this, to answer parliamentary questions and to give examples of exemptions? Does it accept that the rather superficial acceptance that 20·8 per cent. is assumed as income on capital is a misapprehension of the true position? When income from £3,000 to nought is averaged out, one gets nowhere near 20·8 per cent. When one takes account of the taper of 15 per cent. instead of 20 per cent., which operated under the rating system, it is even more beneficial. Does the Labour party, particularly the hon. Member for Perry Barr, accept those points?

Mr. Rooker: Before the Government took office, we had a much fairer system of taking account of people's savings than capital cut-off. The Government have sought to squeeze people who have few savings and a bit of extra pension to cut benefits, and that has led to this anomaly. The anomaly will continue with benefit after benefit unless there are major changes to the policy.
The Minister knows that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition welcomed the doubling of the limit by the Chancellor, but we are entitled to attack the consequences of making that change but not changing the lower limit. The message that that gave to the British people was not the one that the Government intended to give. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) said, the message was intended to make people think: "I am now entitled to a rebate, whereas previously I was turned down for being over the £8,000 limit. What will my rebate be?" I have had to give the same answer to my constituents as other hon. Members have had to give theirs—"The chances are that you will not get a penny piece. If you do, it will be a few bob rather than a few pounds."

Mr. Hawkins: I know that the hon. Member would not want to mislead the House. He knows that I share his concern, but a couple under 75 with savings of £16,000 —a tariff income of £52 a week—can receive the state pension and still qualify for community charge rebate in any area where the community charge, or poll tax, is more than £300.

Mr. Rooker: The capital limit is exactly the same for a single person as for a couple.

Mr. Hawkins: Not a single person—a couple.

Mr. Rooker: I am talking about an individual. I was asking how people with savings of £16,000 survive on such meagre incomes. The Secretary of State said that 15,000 people with savings of £16,000 would benefit. I want to know where they are, what their incomes are and how they survive on such low incomes.
It is easy for Ministers to say, "We do not like new clause 1; it has a technical defect." What a defence for a Minister who has an army of civil servants and who will have a chance to correct any defect in the new clause in the other place. If he had the good grace of some other Ministers, he would have said, "We shall consider the new clause" and would not have nit-picked. I shall happily vote for new clause 1, because any technical defects can be corrected at a later stage.

Mr. Wilson: When we support the new clause, we shall do so soberly and with good sense. However, when the Chancellor made his announcement—which we have since discovered is worthless—during the Budget statement, Conservative Members waved their Order Papers as though it was Christmas and as though the Chancellor was dispensing millions of pounds to tens of thousands of pensioners. Conservative Members should have been a little more circumspect and found out what it was worth. Will not their embarrassment on the poll tax, as in so many other areas, be heightened when, once again, they return to their constituents and have to tell them that this so-called concession is a con?

Mr. Rooker: Conservative Members thought that they were waving goodbye to us, when what they did not know was that the Government were waving goodbye to the rebate—

It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided; Ayes 204, Noes 307.

Division No. 143]
[12 midnight


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Callaghan, Jim


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Alton, David
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Armstrong, Hilary
Cartwright, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clay, Bob


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beith, A. J.
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bell, Stuart
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cousins, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Crowther, Stan


Blair, Tony
Cryer, Bob


Blunkett, David
Cummings, John


Boyes, Roland
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Darling, Alistair


Buckley, George J.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Caborn, Richard
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)






Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dixon, Don
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dobson, Frank
Martlew, Eric


Doran, Frank
Maxton, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meacher, Michael


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eadie, Alexander
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eastham, Ken
Morgan, Rhodri


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morley, Elliot


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'Shawe)


Faulds, Andrew
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fearn, Ronald
Mullin, Chris


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Murphy, Paul


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Nellist, Dave


Fisher, Mark
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flannery, Martin
O'Brien, William


Flynn, Paul
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foster, Derek
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fraser, John
Patchett, Terry


Fyfe, Maria
Pendry, Tom


Galloway, George
Pike, Peter L.


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Prescott, John


George, Bruce
Primarolo, Dawn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Radice, Giles


Gordon, Mildred
Randall, Stuart


Gould, Bryan
Redmond, Martin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Richardson, Jo


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Robertson, George


Grocott, Bruce
Rooker, Jeff


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Haynes, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Ruddock, Joan


Hinchliffe, David
Salmond, Alex


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Short, Clare


Hoyle, Doug
Sillars, Jim


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hume, John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Illsley, Eric
Snape, Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Spearing, Nigel


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Kennedy, Charles
Steinberg, Gerry


Kilfedder, James
Stott, Roger


Kirkwood, Archy
Straw, Jack


Lamond, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Leighton, Ron
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Lewis, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Vaz, Keith


Livingstone, Ken
Wallace, James


Livsey, Richard
Walley, Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wareing, Robert N.


Loyden, Eddie
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McAllion, John
Weish, Michael (Doncaster N)


McAvoy, Thomas
Wigley, Dafydd


McCartney, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Macdonald, Calum A.
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McFall, John
Wilson, Brian


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Winnick, David


McKelvey, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Maclennan, Robert
Worthington, Tony


McNamara, Kevin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McWilliam, John



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maginnis, Ken
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Ray Powell.





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Evennett, David


Alexander, Richard
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fallon, Michael


Allason, Rupert
Favell, Tony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of wight)


Amess, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Amos, Alan
Fookes, Dame Janet


Arbuthnot, James
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Forth, Eric


Ashby, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Sir Marcus


Atkins, Robert
Franks, Cecil


Atkinson, David
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fry, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gardiner, George


Batiste, Spencer
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bellingham, Henry
Gill, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gorst, John


Body, Sir Richard
Gow, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grant, Sir Antony (CambsSW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Ground, Patrick


Bowis, John
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hague, William


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Hanley, Jeremy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hannam, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Ll Gr')


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Christopher


Butler, Chris
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Mrs. Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Holt, Richard


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hordern, Sir Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irving, Sir Charles


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert


Cran, James
Janman, Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dover, Den
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgewater)


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knowles, Michael






Latham, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ryder, Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lightbown, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shelton, Sir William


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclean, David
Shersby, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Speller, Tony


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maples, John
Squire, Robin


Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stokes, Sir John


Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Summerson, Hugo


Mills, Iain
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moss, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thurnham, Peter


Mudd, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Neale, Gerrard
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trippier, David


Neubert, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Norris, Steve
Walden, George


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wheeler, Sir John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilkinson, John


Price, Sir David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Redwood, John
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Rhodes James, Robert
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Riddick, Graham
Yeo, Tim


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm



Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Tony Durant.


Rost, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

RADIATION EXPOSED CROWN EMPLOYEES

`(1) In the principal Act, after section 78, there shall be inserted the following Chapter:—

"CHAPTER VA: RADIATION EXPOSED CROWN EMPLOYEES

78A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to a benefit or benefits, to be known as radiation exposure payments, payable at a prescribed rate or rates, if he is—

(a) a radiation exposed Crown employee who suffers from a relevant disease;
(b) the widow or widower of a radiation exposed Crown employee who suffered from a relevant disease; or
(c) a person entitled to child benefit in respect of a child of a deceased radiation exposed Crown employee who suffered from a relevant disease.

(2) Subsection (1) above shall come into force six months after the passing of the Social Security Act 1990.

(3) In this Chapter—
'a radiation exposed Crown employee' means a person who, while serving as a member of Her Majesty's forces or in any other prescribed employment under the Crown, was, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to have been, exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of his participation in activities connected with a prescribed test or series of tests of a nuclear device or devices;
`a relevant disease' means a disease presumed to have been caused by service as a radiation exposed Crown employee.

(4) For the purposes of this section, any disease specified in column 1 of Schedule 9A to this Act, which a radiation exposed Crown employee develops or has developed at any time after the last day on which he was, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to have been, exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of his participation in activities connected with a prescibed test or series of tests of a nuclear device or devices, but not longer after that day than the maximum period specified for that disease in column 2 of that Schedule, shall be presumed to have been caused by service as a radiation exposed Crown employee, and no other disease shall be presumed to have been so caused.

(5) The Secretary of State may at any time make an Order amending Schedule 9A to this Act in such manner as he considers appropriate in the light of medical evidence.

(6) Where, on the day before such an Order comes into force, a person is treated as suffering or having suffered from a relevant disease for the purposes of this section, or would have been so treated if his claim for benefit under this section had been determined, the provisions of Schedule 9A shall apply in his case as if the Order had not been made.

(7) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which a claim for benefit under this section is to be determined as if an Order under subsection (5) above which came into force after the date of the claim had been in force on that date.

(8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) above, the first regulations under subsections (1) and (3) above shall be made before subsection (1) comes into force.

(9) Before making the first regulations under subsection (1) above, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that the benefit or benefits payable under that subsection by virtue of those regulations will be on the whole as favourable as the benefits that would be payable under section 76 above to persons in similar circumstances if the relevant disease were prescribed for the purposes of that section and the other conditions of entitlement to benefit under that section were satisfied.

(10) A claim for benefit under subsection (1) above made within 12 months after the day on which the Social Security Act 1990 was passed shall be treated as if the provisions of


that subsection and of the first regulations under subsections (1) and (3) above had come into force on that day and as if the claim had been made on that day or on the first day on which the claimant satisfied or would have been satisfied the requirements for entitlement to the benefit, whichever is later."

(2) In section 93(1) of the principal act, there shall be added at the end—
(f) a question whether a person is or was on any day a radiation exposed Crown employee for the purposes of Part II, Chapter VA.

(3) In section 113(1) of the principal Act, for the words "Chapter V" there shall be substituted the words "Chapters V and VA".

(4) In section 115(3) of the principal Act, for the words "those relating to industrial injuries benefit" there shall be substituted the words "Chapters IV to VA".

(5) After Schedule 9 to the principal Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule—


"SCHEDULE 9A


DISEASES PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY SERVICE AS A RADIATION EXPOSED CROWN EMPLOYEE


Disease
Maximum period


Leukaemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leukaemia)
40 years


Cancer of the thyroid
40 years


Cancer of the breast
40 years


Cancer of the pharynx
40 years


Cancer of the oesophagus
40 years


Cancer of the stomach
40 years


Cancer of the small intestine
40 years


Cancer of the pancreas
40 years


Multiple myeloma
40 years


Lymphomas (except Hodgkin's disease)
40 years


Cancer of the bile ducts
40 years


Cancer of the gall bladder
40 years


Primary liver cancer (except if caused by cirrhosis or hepatitis B)
40 years"

(6) In section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986 (annual up-rating of benefits)—
(a) the following paragraph shall be inserted after subsection (1)(i)—
(j) specified in regulations under section 78A(1) of the Social Security Act 1975,"; and—
(b) in subsection (3)(b), for the words "or (ee)" there shall be substituted the words "(ee) or (j)".'.—[Mr. Clay.]

Brought up. and read the First time.

Mr. Bob Clay: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause stands in my name and in the names of hon. Members from both sides of the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and other hon. Friends for not moving new clause 7, thus enabling this debate to take place. New clause 8 is about the 22,000 British service men and approximately 3,000 Crown employees who participated in the British nuclear weapons test programme between 1952 and 1958. Tragically, it is more about the dependants of those men, since the men are dying disproportionately from leukaemia, myeloma and many other cancers.
For years, successive Governments have argued that those involved in the British nuclear testing programme were not exposed to danger from radiation and that there was no connection between the incidence of cancer that they have suffered and their participation in the tests. For years, too, increasing scientific, medical and statistical evidence has contradicted Governments' assertions.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have interviewed many constituents who took part in these exercises at Christmas island, Maralinga or other test sites and have been told stories of how the men wore no protective clothing or dosimeter film badges to measure radiation. It is possible to believe that one or two of them were cranks, or that their memories had faded, or that one or two did not know what they were talking about. But when so many serious, sober people with clear recollections tell us that that was their experience, we cannot go on believing the claims of successive Governments that everyone was protected and wore radiation-measuring badges, and that there was no evidence that anything went wrong.
Leaving aside anecdotal evidence of this kind, however, we can turn to a newly declassified document written before the test programme started, on 20 September 1951. It was sent by Rear Admiral Torlisse to Rear Admiral Brooking. The former was the military commander of the first British nuclear test. I do not have time to read the whole letter, but I want to quote two key passages from it:
Radiological safety must be one of the chief concerns of the naval commander, but equally evidently, some degree of risk must be run by some people if we are to achieve the full purpose of the trial. As naval commander I must expect to have to order or approve the acceptance of some degree of risk. This is a customary service obligation, but it is performed in the knowledge that the Admiralty accept liability for those killed or injured in duty … I believe that all Government servants are in fact entitled to compensation for injury on duty, but the particular points to be covered in Hurricane arise from the fact that

(a) the ill effects may be long delayed
(b) illness unconnected with the operation might have caused the same symptoms."
So before the test programme had even started the military commander recognised that, uniquely, the detrimental effects on men's health might be long delayed —precisely what has happened.
The scientific and medical debate has dragged on for years. Eventually the National Radiological Protection Board was asked to commission a study, which was duly carried out, and the board reported to the Government. No doubt the Minister will tell us tonight that that report found that, with the exceptions of leukaemia and myeloma, there was no evidence that other cancers could have been linked with participation in the test programme.


But that is not what the NRPB report says. It came up with two hypotheses: first, that leukaemia' and myeloma probably were caused by participation in the programme; secondly, that other cancers probably were not. The report said that neither hypothesis was proven and that more research and study were required.
Tonight the House must face up to the issue of how much longer we shall go on studying and debating while men continue to die. I hope that the Government will finally accept this point: only a limited number of these service men are now receiving pensions; mostly, we are talking about widows receiving pensions because their husbands died from leukaemia or myeloma. They are receiving those pensions because the NRPB study finally decided, in 1988, that there probably was a connection.
For any service man who died of leukaemia or myeloma before 1988, that deasion was too late. For any widows of the service men who died before 1988, that decision was too late, If, at the end of 1991, when the next NRPB report comes out—nearly two years from now—it finally concludes that, for example, cancer of the larynx was possibly caused by participation in the test programme, it will be too late for many more who will have died of that disease and for their widows.
We cannot go on and on neglecting this closed universe of people. This is not happening any more. It happened in the 1950s. Time has moved on. The fact that it is a closed universe should make the Government say that on a no-fault, benefit-of-the-doubt basis they will compensate those who were affected by particular diseases.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I do not say that this country should always follow everything that the United States does, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Americans can pay compensation to their nuclear test veterans, surely we can too?

Mr. Clay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He anticipates the next but one part of my speech.
Many believe that the NRPB study is fundamentally flawed in several ways. There is not time to cite all the examples, so I shall give the most stunning point. It was discovered that the records of service supplied by the Ministry of Defence to the NRPB did not include all those who participated in the test. An important category was missing. All the files of those who had claims outstanding for pensions as a result of their participation in the test were not included. By definition, those who ware most likely to weight the statistics to show a high incidence of cancer were not included. It is claimed that the study was to some extent weighted to take account of that, but, again, without going into the most laborious statistical detail, it is difficult to deal with that in a brief speech. Many people have concluded that the study was flawed in many other ways and that the Government should not rely on it.
The new clause is modelled, as nearly as possible in the terms of our legislative procedure, on existing legislation in the United States. It simply says that if one participated in the test and one of a list of cancers has manifested itself within 40 years of participation, it will be presumed that there is a service connection and one will benefit accordingly.
There was some debate in the United States before the legislation was passed. In January when I went to

Washington to research this and met the Bush Administration, I said, "We know that President Reagan faltered before signing the legislation passed by the House and Senate. How do you feel about it now?" They said that they were glad it happened and tha if it happened again President Bush could sign legislation happily. It has taken away the hassle of going to court, stopped an enormous sense of injustice and offence felt by veterans and is not costing large sums. The United States has 250,000 men involved whereas we have oly 25,000. Moreover, their men went into Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I asked whether I could convey their view to the British Government and they said that their advice to the British Government, in so far as it was their place to give such advice, would be to do the same. The message has already been conveyed to the Government, but I convey it again tonight.
Progress is so far ahead in the United States because the research that has been conducted there is far ahead of any such research in this country. The existing American legislation is almost certainly due to be improved this year, with manifestation caps being lengthened and more diseases that are compensatable being added to the list. Report No. 5 of the National Research Council, "Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation", concluded that all the previous understandings about which low level, of radiation cause various diseases have been wrong. The Americans have exhaustively studied what happened in their nuclear test programme and have taken much evidence from many parts of the world. The report—which the Ministry of Defence had not bothered to obtain or study until a week or so ago—concluded that further legislation was needed in the United States. It is believed that it will pass through the House of Representatives and the Senate without much difficulty.
In a sense, we do not need another report from, the NRPB if we assume two things—first, that the radiation yields from American nuclear explosions must have been much the same as British ones and, secondly, that American service men must be much the same physiologically as British service men. The Government must either say that the Americans have got it totally wrong and are compensating people for no reason or acknowledge that they have got it wrong themselves and face up to that.
The new clause is a modest measure. It is carefully drafted to ensure that considerable scope is left to the Secretary of State to fix the compensation levels, to add to or to subtract from the list of prescribed diseases and to change the manifestation levels. I hope that the Minister will not say that some technical problem exists. The new clause has been carefully drafted with, I acknowledge, technical assistance from her Department. If the Government have any problem with the detail of the clause and how it is set out, they can easily amend it in another place.
It may be argued that if we legislate for a service connection presumption, we will automatically compensate some people who are suffering, but not because of their participation in a test programme. There is nothing to be done about that. Those people will, after all, suffer and will be compensated only if they have one of these diseases. Better to have the generosity to compensate those who have leukaemia or cancer for some other reason than not to compensate those who have it because of service. For the sake of argument, take 10 people with cancer of the stomach who we know were all at Christmas island. I


have been told that, whatever the records and even if there could be an action replay, any physician would say, "We may know that statistically of the 10, five had cancer from radiation at Christmas island and five had it for some other reason." No physician will ever establish which five were which. Better to compensate the five who did not get it because of being on Christmas island than deny justice to the five who got it because they were there. We are trying to establish that fundamental principle.
It is disingenuous for the Government to argue that some of the evidence, anecdotal as it might be, could and should have been tested in the courts and that, if service men believed that they could prove that they got these terrible diseases as a result of the test programme, they should prove that in the courts and claim compensation in that way. That is a disingenuous argument, because, until recently, they could not get into the courts because of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Even the abolition of that section was not retrospective. The Government having appealed all the way, Mr. Melvyn Pearce from Bristol won in the House of Lords the right to sue retrospectively. The first case will soon go into the courts, but by the time the Government have appealed that case all the way to the House of Lords, many more people will have died. We cannot have a situation in which this issue is eventually settled through the courts. It is a difficult issue to take to the courts and, in any event, by the time the courts have eventually settled the matter, it will be too late for far too many people.
12.30 am
These people believed that they were serving their country. This issue has nothing to do with one's view on nuclear weapons. If, like me, one is totally opposed to their possession, one obviously takes the view that it is horrific that people should have contracted these terrible diseases while participating in the testing of them. If, like many Conservative Members, one believes that nuclear weapons have kept the peace for many years, one should be all the more grateful to those service men who participated in the programme to test them. This is not a pro or anti-nuclear weapon issue. It is an issue of basic justice.
Radiation kills just as a bullet kills. It is less obvious, it happens later and it is more difficult to prove. I urge the Minister to reflect on the words of President Reagan, who had great difficulty before deciding to sign the legislation that was passed in the United States. He said:
Enactment of this legislation does not represent a judgment that service-related exposure of veterans covered by the Act in fact caused any disease. Nor does it represent endorsement of a principle of permitting veterans to receive benefits funded through veterans' programmes which bear no relationship to their former military service. Instead, the Act gives due recognition to the unusual service rendered by Americans who participated in military activities involving exposure to radiation generated by the detonation of atomic explosives. The nation is grateful for their special service, and enactment of H.R. 1811 makes clear the nation's continuing concern for their welfare.
If the British Government have any concern for the continuing welfare of those who are suffering and for the widows who have lost husbands as a result of those men participating in the test programme, they will end the statistical nit-picking tonight, say enough is enough and accept the new clause.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I cannot match the eloquence of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) on this subject. Nor can I match the depth of his knowledge. The consistent commitment that he has shown to the cause of justice for those who have exposed themselves in the service of the Crown to ionising radiation deserves the praise of the House and a favourable response from the Government.
I was always aware, in a background sense, if that is the right analogy, that perhaps we were not doing justice to those who were exposed to such radiation in our test programmes in the 1950s and 1960s. It was brought home to me just how great the concern was when we had a particularly unedifying occasion here on the afternoon of Friday 2 March, when the hon. Gentleman sought a Second Reading for his admirable Radiation Exposed Crown Employees (Benefit) Bill. It is sad to recall that there was a filibuster, and the many members of the Royal British Legion and veterans who came to witness what they thought would be an important debate went home disappointed. This debate may be taking place late at night and we may not have much time to discuss the new clause, but it is all the more important in view of the fact that the matter did not get the attention that it deserved on 2 March.
It can be clearly established that there is a pathological connection between exposure to ionising radiation and the list of diseases, mostly cancers of various types, in the schedule, which is taken from the United States legislation. Indeed, one could draw up an actuarial connection between the level of ionising radiation received and the likelihood of contracting a number of illnesses subsequently. That is well understood.
Thus—I say in unparliamentary language—we need not nit-pick about the causes or consequences of exposure to ionising radiation. What we have to do is ensure that ex-service men who served the Crown well, and their dependants, receive the appropriate compensation. That would be achieved by acceptance of the proposed new clause. Under the present war pensions provisions, compensation can be achieved, but there is an element of doubt. The order says that, in deciding whether disablement or death is attributable to service, benefit will be given if there is reasonable doubt. But it is extremely difficult to establish what constitutes reasonable doubt.
On 15 May 1989, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, answering a question on this point, said:
One war disablement pension and six war widows' pensions have been awarded because servicemen who took part in nuclear tests contracted or died of leukaemia … or multiple myeloma."—[Official Report, 15 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 73.]
In other words, the precedent has been set. It has been established that the state has a duty to look after the welfare of those unfortunate people. We now have to put the appropriate legislative framework in place to guarantee that compensation is received as of right, and not by peradventure.
I most earnestly beg right hon. and hon. Members to do the honourable thing—to vote on the new clause as their consciences dictate, to make sure that we do our duty by those who have done their duty by us.

Mrs. Shephard: As there is a great deal of interest in this matter among hon. Members on both sides of the House, I shall be brief.
I want to begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), who has been so assiduous in his pursuit of this cause and in his research. I understand perfectly the concerns that have been expressed in the House and elsewhere about the nuclear weapons test programme conducted in the south Pacific in the 1950s, and the suggestion that that programme has bequeathed a legacy of illness to those who participated. The Government's view is that there is no evidence, either medical or scientific, to link participation in the nuclear weapons test programme with the ill health that some of the participants have suffered subsequently. [Interruption.] If hon. Members listen, I shall attempt to develop my argument.
Most of those who took part in the tests were young. Indeed, many were doing their two years' national service. The scientists, too, were mostly young, and because the physical conditions were tough, those who took part had to be fit. Those young men of the 1950s are now, inevitably, middle-aged or elderly. Some of them have developed ill health, and, sadly, others have died. The new clause that we are debating is based on the presumption that exposure to radiation during participation in the nuclear weapons trials was responsible for these illnesses and these deaths. The Government believe that this presumption is not well founded.
It is a sad fact, but a fact nevertheless, that in the western world, where we enjoy a relatively high standard of living, more than 20 per cent. of deaths are due to cancer.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend explain why, in the legislation enacted by the United States Congress, compensation is extended to American service men who took part in the occupation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima even if there was doubt about the adverse consequences of doing duty in those cities?

Mrs. Shephard: Obviously arrangements in the United States are a matter for that country, but I am coming to the provisions in war pensions which may go some way to give comfort to my hon. Friend.
I was saying that, tragically, there are well over 100,000 cancer-related deaths a year in this country. Sadly, many of those who participated in the nuclear weapons test programme would by now be suffering from cancer or might have died, even if they had spent their national service in this country and had never gone anywhere near the south Pacific. Of course, it is understandable that some of them, knowing that radiation can cause cancer—

Mr. Frank Cook: Is the Minister aware that, despite the fact that documentary evidence exists on MOD files that there is no such thing as a harmless increase in radiation, some service men and women were given protective clothing but some were barred from having it and were asked to roll in the dust on the ground at ground zero? Is the Minister aware of that when she tells us that their health could have been the same if they had spent their national service in this country? It was a deliberate test. Does not the Minister accept that? Their health was deliberately put at risk to find out the results.

Mrs. Shephard: I shall deal in a moment with the way in which the tests were conducted.
It is generally impossible, medically speaking, to distinguish between cancers caused by one factor and those caused by others.
Mention has been made of the test programme. The tests were implemented with professional thoroughness and bear favourable comparison with the standards in force today. There is much evidence of the importance attached at the time to the safety of those who took part. Individuals who might be exposed to radiation were issued with dosimeters, usually of the film-badge variety, to record the actual exposure experienced. Readings were taken after each possible radiation exposure, and they provided objective and reliable evidence that the exposure limits set before the tests were respected and complied with. The regulations in force were consistent with recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and advice from the Medical Research Council.

Mr. John McFall: I received a letter last week from the Ministry of Defence stating that workers at the Clyde submarine base in my constituency were exposed to nuclear radiation because the dosimeters were faulty. That was in 1990. Can the Minister be sure that everything was working to perfection in the early 1950s when the equipment is not working properly in 1990? I have that on record.

Mrs. Shephard: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have confirmed on more than one occasion that they are satisfied that a positive effort was made to monitor the observance of the safety procedures and that, if there has been significant non-compliance, that fact would have been observed by those responsible for implementing the safety regulations.

Mr. Clay: Is the Minister aware that literally hundreds of those directly involved have stated categorically that they were not issued with badges, defective or otherwise? In the Minister's view, are they daft, or are they liars?

Mrs. Shephard: I can only repeat what I have just said. Had non-compliance been observed by those responsible for the safety of the tests, criticisms would have been made at the time.
Despite the fact that the Government have remained confident that the safety precautions were adequate and that the personnel who took part were protected by safety checks, we were anxious to alleviate the concern expressed, understandably, by participants that their involvement in the nuclear weapons test programme might well have been the cause of their subsequent ill health in later life.
As a result, the National Radiological Protection Board study was commissioned in 1983. It has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. The purpose of the study was to examine statistically the health of men who participated in the tests and experimental programmes carried out in Australia and the Pacific between 1952 and 1967.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Shephard: I shall, but I am beginning to be a bit nervous about the time.

Mr. Thompson: Can she tell me the number of badges issued against the number of personnel involved in the explosion?

Mrs. Shephard: I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Thompson: I am sorry. Please will the hon. Lady give the number of badges issued at the time compared to the number of personnel who were on the island and who were exposed to radiation?

Mrs. Shephard: Dosimeters were issued to people at the beginning of the tests. After the tests had proceeded and the appropriate authorities were satisfied that the arrangements were satisfactory, dosimeters were no longer issued.
The National Radiological Protection Board has been somewhat rubbished by comments in the Clamber this evening. I must point out that the report was conducted by eminent scientists from the NRPB, from the cancer epidemiology and clinical trials unit of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and with the participation of people eminent in the field such as Sir Richard Doll.
The results were published in the British Medical Journal, and the conclusion was that participation in the nuclear weapons test programme has not had a detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life or on their total risk of developing cancer, apart from a possible effect on the risks of developing multiple myeloma and leukaemia, other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia. The authors of the study acknowledged that the evidence relating to these two diseases was confusing, but on balance they concluded that there may well have been small hazards of both diseases associated with participation in the programme, although this had not been proved.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Has the hon. Lady read the Cabinet papers released under the 30-year rule last year, which make it quite clear that the Government were well aware that people were being exposed to risks which were not made public at the time? Has she read those papers?

Mrs. Shephard: I have not read those papers, but they do not alter the position as far as the NRPB report is concerned. When the authors of that study produced their report in January 1988, they recommended, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said, that observations on the two defined groups of participants and controls should be continued for the first 10 years. The Government welcomed that proposal and they confirmed their willingness to co-operate with the NRPB to implement the recommendations to continue to observe the—

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Shephard: May I finish my sentence?
—to continue to observe the mortality and cancer incidents for participants over a further 10 years as a means of testing the hypotheses formulated by the NRPB.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend but is she aware that she is, I am afraid, quoting selectively from the NRPB report? It says in an earlier section:

Some aspects of the results, however, suggest that a real hazard was associated with the programme. The most striking is the very low probability of finding by chance such large differences as those observed Specifically for two diseases"—
like the ones she quoted.

Mrs. Shephard: I do not accept that I am in any way quoting selectively. The simple fact is that the conclusions of the report were that small hazards of leukaemia and multiple myeloma may well have been associated with participation in the nuclear weapons programme.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I am the patron of the Nuclear Tests Veterans Association and I can tell the Minister that that association will be shocked by her statement tonight. I suggest that she is guilty of misinterpreting the NRPB report, and of selectively quoting from that report. I offer the Minister one phrase from the report which should burn in her mind:
Some aspects of the results suggest that a real hazard was associated with the programme.
That is what the NRPB report said. What is the Minister's answer to that?

Mrs. Shephard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I should like to move on to what is being done under the war pensions scheme, which is administered by the Department of Social Security.
There only needs to be reliable evidence which raises a reasonable doubt about whether a condition is caused or aggravated by service. The Department's doctors are satisfied that the report's evidence raises sufficient doubt in the case of participants suffering from multiple myeloma or leukaemia and any claim to a war pension by such service men or their widows is likely to succeed. Seven awards have already been made, and there are more in the pipeline. The appropriate machinery is in place to provide for war pensions when there is reliable evidence that raises reasonable doubt as to whether a condition is caused or aggravated by service.
I must emphasise that the Government would be willing to pay compensation—

Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Shephard: I really think that I cannot.
I must emphasise that the Government would be willing to pay compensation wherever the Crown's legal liability is established and when there is firm evidence to show, on a balance of probabilities, that those who took part in the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons programme did, indeed, suffer ill health as a result of exposure to radiation in the course of their duties.
Perhaps I may conclude by repeating that the Government cannot just ignore—

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I know that the Royal British Legion and many others are deeply concerned about this matter. What amount of money is involved? And is the Minister saying that what happened in America is wrong and that there was no basis for the different decisions reached there following American research?

Mrs. Shephard: To answer the second question first, I have already said that arrangements in the United States are a matter for that country. The amount of money involved as a result of the Bill, which is not flawed, is £4


million to £5 million. I reiterate that my Department already accepts reasonable doubt in the case of awarding war pensions to people who may be suffering from multiple myeloma of the other condition to which I referred.
The Government cannot just ignore the evidence from the expert advisers in this field that not only is there no such evidence available but there is the conclusion that those who took part in the nuclear weapons test programme did not suffer harm. But we shall await the NRPB's further report with interest and we will take full account of the findings to the extent that they provide any additional information that might affect participants' entitlement to war pensions.

Mr. Boyes: It is disgraceful that the Government should guillotine a Bill and then take up a disproportionate amount of time in a debate, thus excluding Opposition Members who would have liked to speak on this matter. The Minister has given us a most disappointing reply. Some of her remarks have been disgraceful and most hurtful to those involved.
We are discussing the future of a number of men who have suffered over a long period, either because they were too near to the test of a nuclear device or because they had inadequate protective gear or even a combination of the two. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) said, plenty of research has been carried out already, at a cost that could possibly have compensated the victims. Some of the research has cost more than £200,000. It is unacceptable to suggest that there should be even more research.
Surely after 40 years it is time for the Government to take action rather than trying to find further means of delaying payment. There is more than enough evidence already to justify payment to the nuclear test veterans. The Government should treat claims for compensation much more sympathetically. That is what other countries have done. President Reagan signed legislation in May 1988 granting compensation to United States test veterans who participated in the nuclear programme—for those who were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki between August 1945 and July 1946.
A survey of 1,000 American nuclear test veterans revealed twice as many cases of cancer as were expected, and an incidence of sterility 12 times higher than usual. Consequently, the United States are compensating those with 10 per cent. or more disablement within 30 years of exposure to radiation. In Australia, a Mr. Rick Johnstone could receive as much as £300,000 compensation. If compensation can be paid to Americans and Australians, surely British nuclear test veterans should also be compensated.
The conditions that test veterans suffered are well documented, but I shall cite a couple of examples. I have a copy of a MOD memo dated 20 may 1953, classified top secret, which states:
Tests were vital to discover detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men, without various types of protection.
The 1983 Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council found that service personnel were used as guinea pigs in testing the effects of radiation. In 1956, 200 British and 62 Australian service men experienced the effects of an atomic blast
at a closer range than normally allowed.
Recently, the Government changed the rules concerning post-1973 war widows' pensions, which was welcomed by right hon. and hon. Ministers in all parts of the House. The Secretary of State should make a statement to the House at an early opportuniy, which I am sure all right hon. Members will welcome, confirming that proper and adequate compensation wil be paid to those who participated in British nuclear tests and who now suffer illness as a consequence.
I have in my possession the names of many nuclear test veterans who have already died as a result of their presence at test sites. The House is debating the future of some very brave men who served their country loyally, and who, as they grow older, continue to suffer both physically and financially. There is no excuse for not dealing speedily with the financial predicament.
Among the many organisations that I have consulted was the Royal British Legion, which holds the view that ex-service men with a clearly defined condition that can be related to their involvement in nuclear tests should be given the benefit of the doubt. I believe, as does the Nuclear Tests Veterans Association, that public opinion is clearly on the side of the test veterans.
I hope that the Government will prove their flexibility tonight, acknowledge public opinion, and welcome the support given to nuclear test veterans by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I believe also that the House is broadly with me when I ask that nuclear test veterans be given the benefit of the doubt and adequate compensation. I assure the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary that this matter will not go away. It will surely come before the Government again.

Mr. Clay: The Under-Secretary's admission that seven veterans are already receiving compensation after contracting leukaemia and multiple myeloma emphasises that many others died before they had an opportunity to receive any compensation. The Minister said that studies will continue and that another report will be published in two years, so she must recognise that those studies may discover further cases that the Government might finally acknowledge were caused by radiation during the test programme.
By then, it will be too late for other veterans. The House has a simple choice to make. I hope that it will make the right choice, and that we shall not have to return to this matter again. If right hon. and hon. Members choose only for research to continue, week by week more veterans will die and their dependants will suffer. The importance of the new clause is not so much the financial compensation it will provide but the feeling of justice it will engender among the victims and their families.
The debate will continue for as long as it is necessary to maintain it, but in the meantime people die. The House should have resolved the matter by now. In 100 years' time we may know for certain who is right and who is wrong, but it will then be known for certain that everyone who was concerned is dead and that the finding is too late. Let us end the issue tonight. I implore Conservative Members to take that approach. I ask for support for the new clause from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The Government have hardly produced an argument. They have merely repeated what they have been saying for years. Let us put ourselves in line with what the Americans


have already done, in the knowledge that they will be even further ahead of us by the end of the year. We must end this nonsense.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 276.

Division No. 147]
[1 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Allen, Graham
Faulds, Andrew


Alton, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Anderson, Donald
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fisher, Mark


Armstrong, Hilary
Flannery, Martin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Flynn, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Fookes, Dame Janet


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Forman, Nigel


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Foster, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Fraser, John


Battle, John
Fyfe, Maria


Beckett, Margaret
Galloway, George


Beggs, Roy
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bell, Stuart
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Gordon, Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Gould, Bryan


Blair, Tony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Blunkett, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boyes, Roland
Grocott, Bruce


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hannam, John


Bradley, Keith
Harman, Ms Harriet


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Buckley, George J.
Hinchliffe, David


Caborn, Richard
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Callaghan, Jim
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Holt, Richard


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hood, Jimmy


Cartwright, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Sir Charles


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Charles


Cousins, Jim
Kilfedder, James


Cran, James
Kirkwood, Archy


Crowther, Stan
Lamond, James


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Cummings, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Dr John
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Livingstone, Ken


Darling, Alistair
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McAllion, John


Dewar, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Macdonald, Calum A.


Doran, Frank
McFall, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKelvey, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maclennan, Robert


Eadie, Alexander
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Madden, Max





Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mans, Keith
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marek, Dr John
Short, Clare


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sillars, Jim


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Meale, Alan
Snape, Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spearing, Nigel


Morgan, Rhodri
Steinberg, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Straw, Jack


Mowlam, Marjorie
Summerson, Hugo


Mullin, Chris
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Nellist, Dave
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


O'Brien, William
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Vaz, Keith


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wallace, James


Patchett, Terry
Waller, Gary


Pendry, Tom
Walley, Joan


Pike, Peter L.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wareing, Robert N.


Prescott, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Primarolo, Dawn
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Redmond, Martin
Wilkinson, John


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rhodes James, Robert
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Richardson, Jo
Wilson, Brian


Robertson, George
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ruddock, Joan



Salmond, Alex
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Ray Powell.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burt, Alistair


Allason, Rupert
Butcher, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butler, Chris


Amess, David
Butterfill, John


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Aspinwall, Jack
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Atkins, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chope, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bendall, Vivian
Conway, Derek


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Couchman, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bottomley, Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Day, Stephen


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Devlin, Tim


Bowis, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Dykes, Hugh






Eggar, Tim
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evennett, David
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fallon, Michael
Maclean, David


Favell, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Madel, David


Forth, Eric
Major, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Malins, Humfrey


Franks, Cecil
Maples, John


Freeman, Roger
Marland, Paul


French, Douglas
Marlow, Tony


Fry, Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gardiner, George
Mates, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maude, Hon Francis


Gill, Christopher
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mellor, David


Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gow, Ian
Miller, Sir Hal


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Sir David


Gregory, Conal
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grist, Ian
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Ground, Patrick
Morrison, Sir Charles


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mudd, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neale, Gerrard


Hanley, Jeremy
Needham, Richard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neubert, Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayward, Robert
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hordern, Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Price, Sir David


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irvine, Michael
Redwood, John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Janman, Tim
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rowe, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shelton, Sir William


Knowles, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Speller, Tony





Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Tredinnick, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Trippier, David


Squire, Robin
Trotter, Neville


Stanbrook, Ivor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Steen, Anthony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Stern, Michael
Walden, George


Stevens, Lewis
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Ward, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Warren, Kenneth


Stokes, Sir John
Watts, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Winterton, Nicholas


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wood, Timothy


Temple-Morris, Peter
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thorne, Neil



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after One o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

RATING AND VALUATION (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
That the draft Mercury Communications Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March be approved.
That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
That the draft Forth Ports Authority (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
That the draft British Waterways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
That the draft British Telecommunications plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.


That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
That the draft British Gas plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
That the draft British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Question agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION BILL [Lords]

Ordered.
That, notwithstanding that such provisions could not have been proposed in Committee without an Instruction from the House, amendments may be proposed on consideration of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords] to provide for the seizure, detention and forfeiture of drug trafficking money imported or exported in cash.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

WAYS AND MEANS

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION) BILL [Lords]

Resolved,
That any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords] may provide for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of money representing cash, and accrued interest on cash, forfeited under provisions of that Act conferring powers in respect of drug trafficking money imported or exported in cash.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

PETITIONS

Human Embryos

Mr. Tim Smith: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Mr. G. J. Welsh of Hawthorns, Hammersley Lane, Tylers Green, Buckinghamshire, and another on behalf of Mrs. T. Coppin of 55 Robinson Road, Loudwater, High Wycombe. The second petition is signed by 67 other constituents—[Interruption]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly so that we can hear the petition?

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The second petition is signed by 67 of my constituents who are all concerned that the human embryo should be protected. The petitions states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure that involves:—

(a) the purchase or sale of human embryos;
(b) the discarding or freezing of human embryos;
(c) the use of human embryos as sources of transplant tissue;
(d) the use of human embryos as subjects for research or experiment (unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned);
(e) the cross-fertilisation of humans with other species.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

A46-A47 Link Road

Mr. Keith Vaz: I have two petitions to present. I present the first on behalf of Councillor Mike Preston of 60 Barry road, Leicester and Mr. Frank Kerr of 131 Humberstone boulevard, Leicester and 36 other residents of Humberstone who are protesting against the proposed extension of the A46-A47 link road and the fact that the local authority has made no provision for pedestrian safety as outlined in the plans for the link road.
Your petitioners pray that your Honourable House encourage the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider the views of the residents of Humberstone during his consideration of the appeals against compulsory purchase orders by Leicestershire County Council submitted for this planned road,
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Vaz: I present my second petition, which is against the poll tax, on behalf of David Roy Winder of 4 Rawsthorne walk, St. Marks, Leicester and 1,020 other residents of Leicester. A demonstration was held in Leicester last Saturday in which more than 1,000 people protested against the introduction of the poll tax which in Leicester will be more than £400 per person. The petitioners are concerned that the tax is unfair, unjust and will cause misery and hardship to thousands of people in Leicester and to millions of people throughout Britain.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House demands that the Secretary of State for the Environment withdraw this tax and listens to the views of the people of Leicester.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

National Insurance

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner: This Adjournment debate arose from the fact that some time last year I received one of those brown envelopes from a whistleblower. That letter asked me to raise the matter of the mighty scandal of employers across the country not paying into the Inland Revenue the amount of money that they have taken from employees.
As a result of that letter, I raised the issue on the Floor of the House with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He was able to reveal that that was the case and that the Comptroller and Auditor General thought that the position was so bad that he was inclined to look at it as well.
As a result of my questions, the matter was reported in the press and a great deal of publicity arose in many parts of Great Britain. I am indebted to the northern regional low pay unit, the west midlands regional low pay unit and many others who wrote to me saying that I had raised an issue of scandalous proportions in which employers in large and small firms are breaking the law, but the Government are doing nothing about it.
The whistleblower wrote:
Dear Mr. Skinner,
I am the legal adviser to a large … organisation which is why, to my shame, I am remaining anonymous.
Over the past eight years the publications emanating from the Government's Departments"—
that is,Employment News—
have gradually ceased to give (as they used) basic facts and statistics and become a mere vehicle for Government propaganda. There is no other word for it. The enclosed publication used to give facts … The centre pages mark the lowest it has yet reached.
The centre pages referred to fraud squad snoopers who turned into a potato field in Lincoln and managed to find a few people who were getting unemployment benefit. It got the proper tabloid treatment, as we expect. The writer went on to say:
The unholy glee exhibited by whoever wrote the article is unpleasant.£1 million a day 365 days a year is the estimate of monies deducted by employers from the wages of employees in Tax and Social Security contributions which are never paid over. That is a hell of a lot more than the £62·55 million the article boasts of.
That was about the potato pickers, the social security claimants. The letter goes on:
It says nothing of the alleged 'frauds' which were successfully fought by the beneficiaries.
Last year 157 people died on building sites. Over the past 8 years there has been a 20 per cent. cut in the numbers of safety inspectors—there are 12 for London and 90 for the rest of the country. Employment News never mentions that.
That is the scale of the fraud. As people have said, it is a licence to steal from the lowest-paid in Britain. That is usually the case because of the way in which people have to scramble for jobs.
According to the northern regional low pay unit, it all arose from the change in the law instituted by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who has now left to look after his family. He was the Secretary of State for Social Services, and in 1984 he changed the rules to allow employers off the hook. He said:
I have examined carefully the special power contained in section 152(4) of the Social Security Act 1975, under which

directors can become personally liable for the national insurance contribution debts of their company if they knew or should have known that the contributions were not being paid.
From the date of this announcement, I propose to take no further action in any case in which my Department is currently involved."—[Official Report, 12 November 1984; Vol. 67, c. 139.]
That prompted a person called Mr. Justice Harman no less to say that contributions that were being held by employers in a quasi-trust fund had been stolen from the employees when employers did not pass them on. He said:
But the thieves are not prosecuted, as they are no longer held personally liable for payment of the contributions, and all too frequently remain in business, or set up new companies should the first go into liquidation. Meanwhile, the taxpayers meet the cost of the fraudulent practices, and the individual ex-employees suffer weeks of anxiety and trouble until benefit is restored.
Of course, some of them have to suffer even more than that.
In 1980 the amount not collected by the Inland Revenue was estimated at £40 million. By 1987, after the Act had been changed and employers were let off the hook, the amount of fraud had risen to £264 million. The estimate now is that it is approaching £400 million. In the same time those who commit social security fraud—we are talking about people on low pay. one-parent families and such people— have been prosecuted 400 times more than employers who are defrauding their employees and the tax system.
The Government talk to us about the rule of law and the poll tax and the millions of people who refuse to pay it, yet they allow employers to get off the hook. Employers cheat in an incredible number of ways. First, there is creative accounting, which is very handy. Employers deduct contributions from the wages of employees and keep the money in the company account. The second fiddle is not to provide pay slips, and where there is high unemployment people are frightened to ask for a pay slip. By and large there are no unions in the small places and people are frightened to say anything. The employers say, "Everything is okay. You don't need a pay slip and here is money in the hand." They are not paying over the insurance and tax.
The third fiddle is to list full-time workers as part-time workers. If they earn less than £46 a week, as from April of this year, they do not have to pay insurance. If the workers earn more than that, the employers pocket the money and make a fine killing. No stamps are needed, and many of these people are paid as little as £2 an hour.
Another gimmick is to cut the hours of employees who earn more than £46 a week. Two and a half million women fall into the category of people I am talking about; they are affected more than men. As I have said, this information comes from the northern regional low pay unit.
Not only small companies are involved; multinationals are, too. They use an old gimmick: they falsify the numbers of people working for them in the Common Market. Also, they sometimes pay enhanced wages in the Common Market and tell the Inland Revenue here in Britain that those people are on lower wages. They make small fortunes in that way; they declare phantom wages to the Inland Revenue.
Another fiddle is used when a firm is in trouble. Let us say that a company realises that it faces bankruptcy. If it is not already pocketing the money, that is the moment when it begins to do so. Insolvency stares a firm in the face,


so for six, nine or even 12 months such a firm can pocket all its employees' national insurance and tax contributions. Then, when it is declared insolvent, the money is not claimed back from the firm. Throughout the Thatcher years there have been 20,000 bankruptcies or insolvencies a year, so we can imagine how many casualties there must be.
Then there are what I call the phoenix companies which rise from the ashes. A company is set up in one area and seems to flourish for a while. It then goes into liquidation, only to emerge somewhere else with the same machines and sometimes with the same work force. Then the pattern is repeated. Each time, many people are thrown out of work. Debts are left unpaid and company directors pick up the profits and go on to set up somewhere else.
A certain northern firm was set up originally by a couple and an accountant with a Department of Trade and Industry grant. It went bust in 1983, with £310,000 debts, and £195,000 of unpaid VAT, pay-as-you-earn and national insurance contributions, including those deducted from workers' pay. The directors were not prosecuted. The Inland Revenue said that it would "bear with the company". Due to the change effected by the Secretary of State in 1984, the directors were saved from paying £90,000 in PAYE and national insurance.
The name of the company was changed, but it crashed again in January 1985, with £20,000 taken from workers' pay in income tax and national insurance contributions. Again, the Revenue said that it would bear with the directors. The company changed its name again, and went bust again in August 1985, owing £26,679 in income tax and national insurance that had not been passed on, and £16,000 in unpaid workers' wages.
By August 1988, the court had disqualified the first director from holding company directorships. The law finally caught up with him after all those years, and he was not allowed to be a director for three years. He had to pay the small sum of £500 costs. But the bent accountant got off scot free. The other director started another company with another DTI grant—that is what happens in the Government's entrepreneurial society.
This second director set up two more clothing firms, which went bust owing thousands to the Inland Revenue. Altogether, this man, his co-director wife and the bent accountant had started up four companies with debts totalling £500,000. They have not paid back a single penny, or been fined, or been imprisoned for a single day. Those phoenix companies are being set up on a large scale.
That case and others were so outrageous that the official receiver in the north-east said:
It is common place to find that firms run for 2 years with no intention to pay their debts to the Crown. It is licensed theft.

Mr. Dave Nellist: It is dreadful.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, my hon. Friend is right.
The Government talk about the rule of law and how we have a law in Britian that is equal for everybody, yet these employers are running rings round the Inland Revenue. They are not the casualties. The real casualties are the people who go for their unemployment benefit and the DSS says, "Sorry, you haven't got enough stamps. We can't pay you." People go for sick pay. Women go for maternity benefit. All my hon. Friends present know of

constituents who have found that they have insufficient contributions. Then there is the person who wants his old-age pension. Thousands of people go through life working for these companies and end up finding out that they have lost three, four and, sometimes, 10 years of contributions, and their retirement benefit is reduced as a result.
Why does that happen? It is partly because of the changes in the law in 1984, but also because the Inland Revenue does not have enough inspectors to do the job. It is different for social security fraud inspectors checking on people on £40 a week. In 1979 when the Government came to office, there were 2,311 full-time equivalent posts for detecting fraudulent social security claims. By 1989 there were 413 more. Those people deal with one-parent families, those who are supposedly co-habiting and potato pickers in East Anglia. In the same period the Inland Revenue lost 18,000 posts. That is how the Government allow their friends, the bosses, to get away with breaking the law.
What needs doing? We want an increase in the number of Inland Revenue inspectors to follow up employers who are breaking the law. We want the 1984 legislation changed back so that employers can be prosecuted for these debts. We want the Labour Government, because this one will not do it, to ensure that local authorities, regional development agencies and the Department of Trade and Industry fully investigate all companies that apply for grants. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister for Social Security is sleeping."] He will drop to sleep because he has just voted against the veterans.
We want local authorities to be able to use their purchasing power so that the companies from which they buy materials have to conform to proper employment regulations. We want all employees, whatever their hours, to have a proper documented pay slip. We want stronger employment laws and a return to the right to a tribunal. Instead of having to wait two years, we want to return to the pre-1979 position. We want protection against unfair dismissal.
We say to employees: demand and keep pay slips. Ask employers to see the records. Is national insurance being paid? Is tax being paid? If unsure, contact the DSS and have the records checked regularly. Contact the Inland Revenue to make sure that it is receiving the tax. Join a trade union. Every union has a legal department that can help with cases. Too many people think that trade unionism is just about conditions and getting extra money each year. Although they are important, it is also about having a protective armoury so that that legal protection can be used in cases against employers.
The Government should introduce this legislation and stop this business. The Minister should tell the Prime Minister and every other Minister that we are fed up to the back teeth with trade unionists being slagged off because they fight for their rights, such as the ambulance workers and workers who have been described as the enemy within. We do not want that when we know that employers are getting away with blue murder and making money hand over fist. It is time that the bosses were brought into line and got off the workers' backs.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the important points made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and to reassure him that the Government share his concern. I should also like to take the opportunity to trail a little advance publicity for a launch of the new contributions unit and agency which is to be made on Monday. The hon. Gentleman's timing could hardly be more impeccable. I am deeply grateful to him, as will be the whole Government.
I should like to explain the current arrangements. Of course we know that fraud exists, but I shall reassure the hon. Gentleman about the checks that are made. As he knows, it is the employer's responsibility to ensure that the appropriate employee contributions are deducted when earnings are paid, that full and proper records are maintained and that contributions are paid over regularly, together with the appropriate secondary or employer's contributions.
Most class 1 contributions are collected by the Inland Revenue. To emphasise the scale of the operation, at the moment, there are some 1·5 million annual returns from employers, covering well over 20 million contributors and nearly £30 billion of contributions. Although the hon. Gentleman was right to express concern, in the huge majority of cases these arrangements work smoothly with the correct contributions being deducted and paid over to the national insurance fund.
It is not correct to say that checks are not done. When, at the end of every tax year, an employer submits his PAYE return for each of his employees, it is subject to a series of detailed checks within the department. They ensure that the money paid over by the employer corresponds with the amounts recorded on the individual employees' returns. Further checks ensure that individual national insurance records are accurately maintained and that benefit entitlement is properly recorded. That is done by checking the feasibility of every individual contribution received. The checks can also help to identify failures by employers to deduct and pay the correct contributions. Those errors are generally referred to our teams of specialist contributions staff and inspectors for investigation and correction. Many thousands of queries are investigated each year and, as a result, contribution records are amended and arrears of contributions are collected or refunds made.
Although some contribution errors arise from deliberate fraud, it is fair to say that they do not typically arise from it but are the result of genuine mistakes, misunderstandings or even—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have accepted that some are the result of fraud, but others result from simple errors in the computer software used to control payrolls. Most employers are more than happy to correct errors that my Department finds, but where arrears cannot be collected legal proceedings have to be, and are, taken. In the past five years, an average of about 1,300 cases annually have been brought by the Department against employers in respect of arrears amounting to over £20 million. That is in addition to the action taken by the Inland Revenue, which also takes enforcement action against employers who default in their periodic payments of NICs and PAYE income tax.
Complaints from employees about failure by employers properly to pay NICs are not widespread and the majority of my Department's investigations arise from our chasing mechanism. If the hon. Gentleman has information about failures by employers, I should be glad to have details. I shall ensure that those instances are vigorously investigated.
In addition to the regular and routine checking procedures that I have described, national insurance inspectors also co-operate with the Inland Revenue to conduct surveys of employers' premises—a series of co-ordinated visits to employers aimed at uncovering tax and/or contribution irregularities.
The hon. Gentleman referred to people working in fields in East Anglia. I represent a constituency in East Anglia that is full of fields and the people who work in them are subject to visits of that kind, as are employers. The present system of survey has been in operation since the beginning of the 1986–87 tax year and in its first three years DSS inspectors conducted 270,000 survey visits and, as a result, an additional £37 million of contributions were recovered. The surveys also corrected many thousands of minor errors by employers.
As one would expect with any system as large and complex as the national insurance scheme, we take stock regularly of how well our procedures are operating and whether there are any improvements to be made. In the last two years there have been two internal departmental studies into contributions work which have examined every aspect of the work that is done.
Those studies have concluded that there is undercollection of national insurance contributions. That is not surprising, given the large number of employers and employees who are required to make contributions and the large sums of money involved. No collection system can be 100 per cent. effective or perfect. There will always be a small proportion of employers who try to avoid their responsibilities, and mistakes are bound to happen. We have taken the reports very seriously indeed. We have reviewed our existing arrangements for collection and compliance and we have concluded that improvements can and should be made.
I must thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, because the results of that work will be seen shortly. With effect from Monday 2 April, a new contributions unit will be established to take responsibility for all operational aspects of the national insurance scheme. The unit's HQ will be at Newcastle and the network of locally based staff responsible for collection and compliance work will no longer be under the general control of local social security office managers but will come instead under a central management structure which will be dedicated exclusively to this important part of the Department's work of contributions and compliance.
The unit will place a high priority on compliance. There will be better training for national insurance inspectors and in the first instance there will be 100 more of them to perform that task, with rising numbers year on year. They will be trained better so that they can keep up to date with changing business practice. Their existing jobs will be reorganised so that they can spend more time visiting employers and investigating national insurance irregularities.

Mr. Skinner: Will the unit be more successful than the last special unit that was set up, which managed to find


only £6·8 million? How many additional inspectors will be employed to hound employers who are fiddling? How much additional money does she expect to rope in as a result of these efforts?

Mrs. Shephard: I did not think the hon. Gentleman was listening. I said that 100 more inspectors would be employed instantly and that the numbers would increase year on year in the unit, rising to more than 2,000 inspectors in all.
Our reorganisation will not stop there. From April of next year, the unit will be given agency status and there will be increased management accountability and flexibility to allow the development of a more professional approach to contributions work—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister must be heard.

Mrs. Shephard: I fear that, from a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman displays his misunderstanding of the meaning of agency status, but I ask him to watch the press after the launch of the contributions unit and agency, which I am sure will be reported fully on Tuesday. That will extend his understanding.
We have taken careful note of the promise made by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the national insurance fund account, in which he drew attention to departmental studies that cited deliberate evasion by a minority of employers. Of course we recognise and share his concern. We shall continue to do all that we can to prevent this form of abuse and to ensure that the correct amounts of contribution are recovered. We also share his concern about the level of resources mentioned in the internal studies, and, as I have said already, we plan to increase the number of inspectors during the coming year.
However, it is obvious that additional resources are not the only answer. It is quite clear that the work of the

inspectors must be prioritised—and it will be. The inspectors will be working in a unit dedicated to compliance and contribution work. It is clear also that their training needs to be improved. That, too, will be achieved by the existence of the unit. It is the job of the Department to provide more resources for this very important work, but it is extremely important that staff —an existing resource—be well trained and experienced in the sort of work that modern business practice will oblige them to do.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by all of that.

Mr. Skinner: No.

Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps not, if he is not listening.
The Government are taking very careful note not only of internal studies of the problem, which I have described, but of the NAO report, which the hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid. It is unfortunate that in his contribution. which, as usual, was colourful, he displayed such animosity towards employers. Employers do, after all, provide employment. Our experience in the Department is that it is a minority of employers who cheat the system in this way, and we are absolutely determined that they will be pursued.
The problem of underconection came to light as a result of investigations initiated by the Department and aimed at improving the service that we provide. Since receiving these reports, we certainly have not allowed the grass to grow under our feet. Instead, we have urgently examined the findings and have decided to embark on a major reorganisation of our contributions work. That is the proper response of a Government determined to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public administration.
Once again I thank the hon. Gentleman most sincerely for giving me the opportunity to point this out.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Two o'clock.